WALL-E- Even though TSS and bawpcwpn answered your question, I’m gonna add my 2 cents. I dont believe anyone ‘started God’ because then that would make them God. God just always was. Now I’m not asking anyone to believe that, and I’m not gonna put people down for not believing it. I know there’s no proof, but that’s the whole idea of faith. This is just what I believe. No, I don’t fully understand it, but that’s another aspect of faith I guess.
Sorry about my recent behavior…
i’ve been having some serious tension and stress getting into the school year and answering posts so please forgive me if i’ve offended any of you…please.
I’m going to stop posting for about 1 week on these debate threads to get my senses back and then i’ll return. I hope you all understand i’m not backing out or anything i’m just recouperating from some stress. Thanks…
bawpcwpn: I didn’t start this thread. Anyway, my point is that there is no proof against God, so don’t even try it; it won’t work.
What i’ve noticed is that for atheists, it’s easier to attack Christianity than to defend evolutionism. And as for me, it’s easier to attack evolutionism than to defend Christianity. What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. It just shows that for both points, there is religion.
Now, i’d like to remind everyone that this is not about to be a Christian or not to be a Christian; this is about evolution and creation.
So, bawpcwpn, you’ve said that Mr. Dick Dawkins’s book has no proof? I just want to make sure of what i read.
And btw, what do you think we evolved from?
LL9: You are not weird at all to believe in intelligent design. In fact, it’s undeniable. 
WALL·E: Nobody made God come. He’s God. The definition of a god is a “supreme being” (Merriam-Webster’s), which basically means above all.
Now, as for time.
Time. Not only is it a sentence fragment, it is a very interesting subject. I often think of time as matter (like from A Wrinkle in Time) which equals the universe. Never mind.
Eternity is usually interpreted as an infinite period of time, but if God is eternal, then He must be…time. Which is not possible, since time does not change things; it is the change. God is not change because He does not change. (Bible) So, eternity can’t be time; it must be something beyond our comprehension.
So, please remember that eternity is not time, WALL·E. And that God has no limits. And that i need help with these sentence fragments. xD
Let’s talk about the Grand Canyon. Beauty, ain’t she? But how in the world was this ditch formed? There are many common theories. I’ll just go over a few.
Geologic evolution
For millions of years, the Colorado River carved the canyon, millions of years ago.
Noah’s Flood
During a worldwide flood sent by God circa 2348 BC, the canyon was formed.
Great rain
While it was raining to create the worldwide flood circa 2348 BC, the rainfall was so powerful that it made the Colorado River flow upward so powerfully that it carved the Grand Canyon, mixing sediments all around its walls.
Let’s look over each one.
Geologic evolution - The Colorado River couldn’t have done it. Rivers don’t flow uphill. (duuhhhhh) Why would it have to flow uphill? Because on the rim, the part where the river would enter the canyon is at a lower elevation than the part where the river would exit. (Google Maps)
Noah’s flood - Although there are ancient legends worldwide about a worldwide flood, that’s not really evidence, is it?
Great rain - Uh…there was rain in the river, too, right? Although rain from God would definitely be powerful, there’s no evidence for the flood, right?
i love the fact that every old country…babylon…ancient china…everyone has a great flood story!!!
Talk about ignorance being bliss. Have you not read anything anyone has said in this thread? Are you so blinded by your beliefs that if anyone comes along to challenge them you just put your hands over your ears and go “la la la, not listening! God exists and you can’t say anything to prove he doesn’t”.
Well excuse me, but just as evolutionists don’t have irrefutable against the existence of God (never mind the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not say anything about God existing or not, it simply says that life as we know it has evolved. It still leaves the option that God put the whole process in motion), but neither does Christianity or any other religion have irrefutable evidence for the existence of a Designer/Creator.
What Mr Richard Dawkins does offer in his book is very persuasive evidence as to why there isn’t any Supreme Being, and this evidence is supported by facts, logic and reason. Evolutionists don’t go around pulling their so called “truths” from their proverbial’s and expect people to believe them. They give scientific evidence. And the scientific community is very rigorous when looking at facts and evidence to support theories and whether or not they accept them. They do not accept things on a whim as most scientists accept information based on reason, logic and facts and not some book that is not a primary source of events that supposedly happened and was written 200 years after a supposedly divine guy came to earth.
Welcome to the 21st Century!
As for what we evolved from, did you not read what I said?
Here are some reading points for you A113, and you would be terribly ignorant not to read them, just as you ignored my challenge to read The God Delusion in return of me reading a text of your choosing.
[1]
Misconceptions about Evolution
Chimps genetically close to humans - that’s a BBC article
And as for your charming Grand Canyon story, see here: Geology of the Grand Canyon.
And do not boo whinge hiss about this being Wikipedia. If you don’t read it because it is Wikipedia then you truly are as ignorant as you appear, as Wikipedia (especially on articles like this) require sources and if you take a look at the sources you will see there is a list a mile long.
Give me the most persuasive of these. This book isn’t available in my local library, btw.
A reliable scientist does not get his facts from a biased, evil encyclopedia. Since when does an evolutionist go straight to Wikipedia instead of explaining it?
Explain it yourself, because you can…or can you? 
why is wikipedia evil?
Because it lies, and as a result, it has tricked nearly all of Pixar Planeteers whenever they believe it. But that’s off-topic, we’ve got a topic for that, too.
I lol’d. srsly.
IT LIES*, IT IS EVIIIIIIL!!!
[size=67]*hardly any of the time and proves a useful resource for millions of people but still it is a tool of satan and we should treat it like the plague![/size]
Sigh - it seems there is no hope for someone as ignorant as yourself.
I’ll leave this thread with the following quote by the great Bertrand Russell,
Ignorant? 
Of what?
You have stated that there is no proof against God, and i’ve stated that there is proof for God. What am i supposed to conclude from that? Hmm…
I’ve answered every single one of your questions; when i ask you a question, you give me a link. My answers are inspired by the Holy Spirit; you don’t have the answers, you link me to someone else. What am i supposed to conclude from that?
I give you common knowledge as sources; you give me written articles that are taken waaaaay out of context.
I tell you that creation is true; you tell me that evolution might be true.
His calculations left out a few means of salt loss from the ocean. The addition and subtraction of salt is approximately the same.
You can read the entire rebuttal at the second link.
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html
asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html
You give us hearsay and urban legends. We give you sources with references and facts.
We tell you evolution is true, verified, subject to the same scrutiny as all other scientific theories. You constantly mention a book that was written and translated by men (a god may or may not having been involved, but it was still a man who put it to paper) which you follow because it says so, and it says so because you follow.
I’ve been pretty much on the defense so far, so for a change of pace here’s a nice selection of interesting bible quotes to explain. And some just to entertain.
Sorry Bobbitt. You’re not welcome in church anymore.
So which was it?
Guess it must have been the latter or else Noah screwed several species out of existence. But still why can’t the author decide how many animals he took? If you’re to take this literally, then how is this explained? Alternate dimension Noah?
That’s some justice.
Pretty greedy of him.
My jaw is crooked. Guess I’m SOL in going to church.
Tom Boys need not apply to heaven.
Oh dear. Have you been to an optometrist lately A113, because you mustn’t be seeing what I am writing correctly, because I’m quite sure you aren’t that…i’ll stop there.
There is no proof for or against the existence of God. If there was proof in either way, then we would be having a different conversation. No one can offer any proof, only pieces of evidence, and their best opinions as they try to puzzle their way to the answer.
My attempt at humor and wit must have gone right over your head. If I try and explain some of these concepts in laymens terms to you, or anyone, it most certainly wouldn’t be accurate as Bertrand Russell once said in that quote above. I link to the articles because you need to read them in context. I sincerely doubt that you’ve read them [b]at all[/b], and yet you judge them and say they are taken “waaaay out of context.” How on earth can you think they are taken way out of context? There is no context to take these articles out of! And if they aren’t taken out of context you dismiss them because they are from Wikipedia! You are acting like an immature three year old who hasn’t ever seen the ocean, but you believe it to be not there because someone told you once and you trust that person. And you are also judging something by what it may have been. That would be like saying Macs suck and you would never use one even though the last one you ever used or saw was one running Mac OS 7.
You take your answers from something no one has ever seen, felt, heard or touched, and if they claim to have, it has never been scientifically proven. If I was to say there was a celestial teapot in the asteroid belt that no one could see because it is far too small for modern telescopes to see, but I maintained it was there, I would dismissed as delusional and in need of a head check. Whereas if this idea had been around for thousands of years and there were books and tv shows and t-shirts about it and the idea had been passed down from parent to child as truth, well then I’d be hailed as something like the next Pope, but it still doesn’t make it true.
Common knowledge? COMMON KNOWLEDGE? You must be joking! Please tell me this is all part of some great big joke and i’m in the thick of it, because I don’t see how anyone in their right mind could say that the existence of God is proven by common knowledge! Common knowledge is things like the sky is blue or an apple is food or George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America, and are not generally contested so easily. The existence of God is most certainly not COMMON KNOWLEDGE!
You have not offered any proof or truths. If anyone had offered any truths or proofs for the existence of a supreme being, then I can guarantee you that there would be no atheists or agnostics, and if there were they would be extreme eccentrics who would say the ocean is not wet and blue, even if they swam in it every day.
For goodness sake, grow the heck up!
Look, A113, this is not an argument - it’s a debate, or discussion. It’s not “I believe this” “you believe that” it’s more like, I give you evidence (where available) and you read it and then come back with evidence of your own that supports your view. The trouble is, I don’t know what you are doing with the sources me (and others) have been providing, since it doesn’t seem to be altering what you are saying. Or you ask for sources and evidence, yet move onto another triviality without even responding to that evidence that you asked for. Do you even read it?
Part of me suspects that the reason you are so hung-up about Wikipedia, is because it’s an encyclopaedia that displays summaries of many topics, and you can’t handle the fact that some articles have information that conflicts with your own beliefs, and it makes you uncomfortable. So you say that “Wikipedia is evil” and ignore it (even though you need to have a source for what you add to pages) rather than think about why the site bothers you so much.
If there was a hard copy encyclopaedia that explained evolution as fact, taking out the fact that no-one can edit an already produced encyclopaedia which is one of your supposed main issues with the site, would you say that the books and publisher are evil, too? Out of interest, what’s your opinion on Conservapedia? (If you have the WOT plug-in, just continue to the site, anyway. It’s the content that gets it the low rating, I think.)
Does your library have any books (by authors without a hidden agenda) explaining the basics of evolution? By asking “What do you think we evolved from?” it seems as if you don’t understand evolution, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking that question. Knowledge is power and if you understand the basics of evolution, you won’t be able to hide behind ignorance as an excuse. Maybe that could be the reason why you don’t want to learn?
If I have a previously held belief, but someone comes with evidence that disputes that, and it is verified by people who have been to university and are professionals in the field, I will (usually) gladly rethink my position on the issue. I know this goes against what you are taught, since Christianity is all about faith, but maybe that will give you some idea of why others are calling you “ignorant.”
Personally, I don’t think you are ignorant (I think people can change if they choose to), but your behaviour? Yeah, it could be classed as ignorant. If you wanted to learn and would be willing to open your mind a bit, then you can change your ways and we’d be more lax on you. It’s not so much what you are saying and your beliefs, but your attitude and compete denial of any evidence to the contrary is what gets people’s backs up.
I know you’re home-schooled, and you seem a bit young, so that might explain your point of view. Heck, if I was in your situation and a little bit sheltered, like you, I would probably believe the same thing if it was told to me as fact ever since I was a child. But you are the one in control of your attitude and part of growing up is listening to others’ opinions and considering them, rather than discounting them straight away. And it’s not as if we’re pulling them out of no-where, we have science on our side, dude.
The God Delusion can’t offer proof of God’s non-existence, because he hasn’t yet been proved to exist. The book does, however, give reasons on how religion came about, it’s use for humans, studies supporting the view on why religion does not really make people good (nor is in necessary to bring that out in people), amongst some sub-chapters. I would have liked a quick summary on evolution, but I may have accidentaly skipped that part. It’s a pretty easy read, not boring at all, and I’m sure you could handle it. Don’t let the title scare you.
Evolution doesn’t really need defending because it’s pretty much accepted as fact amongst the scientific community. It only needs explaining to people who have misunderstood or gotten their information from people who don’t understand it.
Evolution(ism?) is not a religion. It is a scientific theory. You don’t have to believe in a higher power to accept evolution. Nor do you totally have to reject religion in order to accept it as fact. You will probably have to shuffle your way of thinking a bit to account for evolution as “God’s plan” though…
I’d like to steer the discussion away a little bit and approach it from a different angle, and ask A113 and Al-bob (as I’ve previously asked them) to explain their stance on Evolution/Creationism being taught in public schools. Do you think Creationism should be compulsory? Evolution in the science classroom should be banned? Or taught alongside Christian Creationism? Why or why not?
Ok, that’s fine. But I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions on the above proposal.
Not weird, no. But if I had never heard of the story of Creationism before, and you had told me it, I would think the story was weird. It’s only because people have been hearing it from their parents since they were young is the reason why people don’t gawk at it.
Here’s one.
- We exist. (common knowledge)
- We are made of matter. (common knowledge)
- All matter comes from somewhere. (common knowledge)
- All matter must have had an origin.
What was this origin? This can only be decided by faith. If you’re a theist (one who believes in a god) or if you’re an atheist (one who believes there is no god), your answers will differ greatly (common knowledge)
Theists believe: Intelligent design.
Atheists believe: Accident.
Weirdos believe: We don’t exist; it’s impossible.
Only one of these groups of people, the theists, feel that they were born for a purpose. The strongest of these groups are the atheists because there is only one kind of atheism. The weakest of these groups are the weirdos, because there are not very many (thankfully!) who believe they aren’t there.
We’re here. Trust me. So, what does that leave?
A god or no god.
This is a matter of faith.
Haha, Fett101, nice quoting there. 
I can understand people believing the Bible in context of today’s society, i.e. not taking the Bible literally. If a Christian (or even those of other faiths) say that they believe the messages that the Bible is trying to put across, such as looking after your neighbours, that sort of thing, then fair enough. But taking the Bible literally, word for word, does equal fail. (Sorry to use an internet euphism, but it just fitted well there.) As Fett101 pointed out, using the Bible word for word as a guide on how to live your life, as well as an explanation for the creation of the universe, means that many contradictory things have to happen at once. You also have to believe things that morally, as a human being, you really shouldn’t believe as you end up condemning innocent people for no reason.
The thing is, there are Christians out there who use the Bible as a sort of guide as opposed to this ultimate vat of truth, and it does work in that way. But there seems to be this idea that you can pick and choose to believe certain bits of the Bible word for word, and other bits not at all. So, how do you know that the bits you’ve chosen to believe are the parts that are right?
A113- So, I’m a weirdo then? As in, I’m neither a theist nor an atheist (though more atheist than anything else), so I’m weird. Though I do believe that we exist, I just don’t know why. I don’t think that a God is the answer, especially as if I were to be a theist, I’d rather like to be Buddhist, but if I were to do that, then I’ll end up in hell anyway for believing the wrong thing.
I guess those who believe in Creationsim do tend to be very certain, but with that degree of certainty does come a degree of close-mindedness. It’s unavoidable. If you truly, truly believe in one thing, you will automatically reject other ideas. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t really be believing in that one thing. That’s why I prefer the scientific way of thinking, in the use of theories. The theory of Evolution is just a theory after all, just one way of explaining where we come from and how we came to be. If another, better theory is created in the scientific community and is more proven, then scientists are usually quite happy to change their way of thinking.
Welcome back lizardgirl! 
Well, there’s not really an in-between of theism or atheism, like there can’t be three-sixteenths of a god. But i understand what you mean.
And you’re 100% right in that creationism is, scientfically speaking, a theory just like evolution, though i’d rather not say that they’re equal.
No, you’re not a weirdo.
Well then i’m like lizardgirl…
Yes there is. Agnosticism. There’s also Deism, someone that believes god exists and created the universe but takes no part in it’s normal operation.
You’re not listening. They’re not equal. There’s no scientific evidence to support creationism. It is not, scientifically speaking, a theory because a scientific theory is “a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.” Creationism is not testable and not capable of predicting future occurrences.