We are human beings

Jet Black · #11 8th July 2003, 07:24 AM

what?

foolsparade · #12 8th July 2003, 08:23 AM

Valen; if you want to present an argument for 6 day creation, go over to the science section, i'm sure there will be someone who will debunk it. Like it hasn't been done a million times already. :rolleyes:

Valen · #13 8th July 2003, 08:30 AM

Derived from my rewrite history game, I encountered problems about the 138,000,000 years ago beginnings of the primates:
1. If millions of years of primate's and human reproduction (the population should have boomed since no knowledge of reproductive controls at that time), the scientists should discover a million findings about remains of primates but we seem to have less evidences.
2. If millions of years of primate's and human migrations, there should millions of migrating evidences. So far we only have presumptions with less evidences.
3. In order to compensate about the recent population of today, there should be evidences of millions of catastrophes. Again so very little evidences and some are just presumed.
4. If religion is unreasonable or having unreasonable beliefs, how come our world has lots records or history concerning from various locations around the world about religion?

ifriit · #14 8th July 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Valen

Derived from my rewrite history game, I encountered problems about the 138,000,000 years ago beginnings of the primates:
1. If millions of years of primate's and human reproduction (the population should have boomed since no knowledge of reproductive controls at that time), the scientists should discover a million findings about remains of primates but we seem to have less evidences.

Just out of curiousity, is English not your first language? In response to this, what should we have discovered about primates that we haven't? We know a heck of a lot about them, yet you feel something is lacking, I assume. Why?

Originally Posted by Valen

2. If millions of years of primate's and human migrations, there should millions of migrating evidences. So far we only have presumptions with less evidences.

There is a lot of evidence. Your ignorance of it does not make it nonexistant.

Originally Posted by Valen

3. In order to compensate about the recent population of today, there should be evidences of millions of catastrophes. Again so very little evidences and some are just presumed.

How are you determining that? How do you know what the population should be today?

Originally Posted by Valen

4. If religion is unreasonable or having unreasonable beliefs, how come our world has lots records or history concerning from various locations around the world about religion?

This is known as an argument from popularity, a known fallacy. The popularity of religion does not necessarily correlate with its truth value.

Cantuar · #15 8th July 2003, 03:22 PM

Is this really a creationism-evolution discussion or is it apologetics? I mean, are we arguing against evolution here or against atheism?

Angel75 · #16 8th July 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Valen

My team will try our best...
Perhaps we need to redesign it with all evidences to support it but it is actually a big book compressed to become like those paragraphs that you see. It was actually deducted and became like it so that it will be easier to understand by others with a direct attack on the personality of the reader. But I presumed that some targets were missed.
We will tackle about concerning your demands...

But I want to ask you what is your main question or evidence about God that He don't exist? All atheist must have evidence against God based on our survey. What is yours?

wow. a whole team and that is all you can come up with? that fact free and emotional drivel of an essay will be laughed at at anyone who is told it will convince them of the "truth"

Siliconaut · #17 9th July 2003, 06:45 AM

@Valen: Your "history without god" is completely inaccurate - there have been no millions (or trillions) of years of inactivity in our cultural development. Before the circumstances that lead to a population bottleneck forced our ancestors to begin their worldwide diaspora, our development stagnated for hundreds of thousands of years - but that was when a sharpened stone was the highest developed tool in use. Since then, our development was exponential, the time between leaps and bounds of innovation growing shorter and shorter.

The agricultural revolution happened only a couple of thousands of years ago, and look what giant steps we have made since then!

Unless you don't care for fruitful discussion, please read up on some historical facts and try to get your time table right.

Jet Black · #18 9th July 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Valen

4. If religion is unreasonable or having unreasonable beliefs, how come our world has lots records or history concerning from various locations around the world about religion?

Human Nature.

lucaspa · #19 9th July 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by humanZ

I actually typed out a fairly long post about the evidence for God's non-existence, but I finally remembered the forum rule prohibiting that debate.

My argument essentially boiled down to two points:

1 The Christian concept of God has characteristics that are indentifiable as fictitious in origin.

2 You can tell the biggest whopper lie if there is no chance of finding out the truth.

You know, you wouldn't need such a long post if you could just post the scientific paper that showed God didn't exist!

Basically, the problem is that there is no objective, intersubjective evidence that would falsify the existence of God.

1. Yes. SOME of the concepts within Christianity have origins that are fictitious. However, that doesn't relate to the WHOLE claim that Yahweh exists. You have found falsification for THOSE characteristics (possibly), not for the deity.

2. This drops all evidence for God simply because it is evidence for God, and launches an ad hominen attack on anyone claiming to have personal experiences of God.

"But why should anyone think such a combination of faiths might be necessary, or indispensable on a quest for fundamental truth? There are two reasons for thinking it might be. One would be to have first-hand, experiential evidence of God which was personally convincing. The second is because to dismiss belief in God summarily is to pass premature and unwarranted judgement on the sanity, honesty, and intelligence of a vast number of our fellow human beings who claim to have such experiential evidence, many of them the same persons we do trust implicitly when it comes to other matters. It ill becomes any of us to take the attitude that all evidence for God is false evidence, beneath consideration, simply by virtue of its being evidence for God, or even by virtue of its being outside the purview of science. Such attitudes are taken, sometimes in the name of science, but in truth this sort of attitude is intellectual dishonesty." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pp. 281-282.

lucaspa · #20 9th July 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Cantuar

Is this really a creationism-evolution discussion or is it apologetics? I mean, are we arguing against evolution here or against atheism?

Theism vs Atheism. This started out as an Apologetics argument. The OP was a proselytizing one; only superficially involving science.

I suggest the thread either be closed or moved to Apologetics where it belongs.