Why I believe God Created Life.

[Apostlelypse]

As an atheist i have studied religions and their purpose for most of my life. Primarily to figure out why people seem to need religion.

My life has purpose and meaning because of the impact i and my work have on people. that is sufficient meaning for me.

So you don't believe in God, but you have an interest in religion. I get that, you want to learn about it and learn why people are religious. I believe people are religious few a few reasons. To give life meaning, and for a sense of hope. I've known people who were homeless, and through God they got the strength to recover in life. Some people, myself included, have experience miracles in life.

What I don't understand about you still is your purpose here. Are you looking for answers, or are you trying to turn people off to religion based on your knowledge. Based on the few posts I've read from you it seems to be the later. Take your debate with Rusra for example. You've essentially said the Book that gives meaning to his life is full of Mythology, ironic coming from someone who named their account after a mythological creature, but either way what you're essentially doing is sh*tting on the book that tells him his life has meaning. Maybe you're right, maybe it's all bullspit, however in my opinion you're belittling his beliefs and are coming off as a bigot, not saying you are, just saying that's what it seems. Compare Rusra to a soldier in the army, and you're a person who is opposed to the war he is fighting. If you go to that person and tell his his cause is worthless, you've attempted to take the meaning out of his cause, This is Troll-like behavior.

Maybe think of it this way. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, so any discussion involving the tooth fairy is irrelevant to me, if someone around me was discussing it, I would not get involved. If I did, i would be a troll, trying to start an argument just to start an argument. I wouldn't tell a little kid that Santa isn't real, because Santa gives that child meaning. Telling a kid Santa doesn't exist is being a giant f******g troll.

Most Athiest's that I know, not including you but perhaps you feel this way, feel that their life is just one life in the randomness of existence, so they add subjective meaning to it. Since you don't like quoting the bible; I'll try Shakespeare. He's said "Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." This is a very depressive statement that religious people want to avoid. Someone denying them of God is subconsciously leading them to this belief. Total dick move. Whether God's existence is true or not, many people live in bubbles to stay sane. I am a contributing member of society, I lead a very normal life. When I studied quantum theory/string theory/athiesm I felt very desolate and alone in life, When I experienced a miracle, I did not feel alone anymore. To convince me that miracle was a lie would make me feel like a statistic. This is what you seem to be attempting to do to people here. Lets do some math. A person with religions feels they live for a purpose, a person without it feels like a statistic. What's the statistical value of a person? its 1/7.0 x 10^7th. What that amounts to is one person making up 1.4 x 10^-6th of 1% of all humanity. Big difference, people don't feel so unique when they realize that.

This discussion is called "Why did God create life" You don't believe in God, so the only reason I can see you being here is to be a complete troll. You could inform us about how evolution created life. There are plenty of people who believe in God, and won't deny evolution for a second. So most of the information, coming from a completely scientific standpoint is irrelevant to the actual discussion. Once again making you come off as a giant troll.

I attempted to tell you my theories on intelligent design, things I've learned from studying evolution, general relativity, string theory, theology and quantum mechanics. You would not listen to them. Once again a complete troll move.

I'll admit I'm sort of a troll too. I came here to stir some crap up, however I did it in a way without taking meaning from anyones beliefs. In fact one person told me he took my semi-sarcastic advice, talked to God, and it helped him find answer meaning. Maybe he's insane for believing in it, but he is more content with himself. So If i am a troll, I did a good deed. If you're a troll or not, you still seem like a dick to me. Not every religious person is exactly a member or the Westboro baptist church, most are good people that just want something to help them live happy while they contribute to society, so they came to this board to discuss their ideas. You seem to want to deny their beliefs because of some messed up sense of proving people wrong. Many Athiests don't believe in God, and Don't acknowledge the subject of God, That's fine and that makes sense. Others decide to be a complete troll. Like you.

Please post here if you want to learn about the subject, Athiesm and Religion can go-exist. If you want to shut down peoples beliefs and act like a book, that has its fair share of being historically accurate is some form of mythology, please get out and find a better hobby. Or I will happily troll the hell out of you until I am banned, you f*****g troll. If I'm wrong about any of this please correct me, Other atheists here have politely asked me for my ideas, You have not. You won't even let me discuss science with you. You beta s*** troll.

Tl;dr Thank you come again.

 

[Simurgh]

So you don't believe in God,...snip...snip..snip... You beta s*** troll.

Tl;dr Thank you come again.

I am not sure that you actually know any atheists, you probably assume you do because there are some on this forum. So don’t go around acting as if you knew anything about us. If you did you would know better than to say that “many atheists don’t believe in god.” Which part of atheist do you not understand? The part where atheism means “no-god”?

As far as I know, I do not need to justify my presence here to you. You are posting in the science-religion thread. If all you can deal with is people who agree with you, then you need to go elsewhere.

And if the study of science makes you feel small, you glom on to your god. Well good for you, now you feel better. Me, I don’t need that. I am ok with feeling small since I don’t need to measure myself against the size of the universe to feel human and worthwhile. Then again, I need not whip out my dick and measure it against other guys. That’s your issue.

And your opinion of me, oh wow—I don’t care. You call me a dick? Look in the mirror little boy. Me, yeah, not so much since I am missing the dangly parts.
It’s kinda cute, those personal attacks. You really have nothing valid to say or contribute to any discussion and you call me a troll. Oh, that is funny. And you cannot even spell atheism right.

And why would I ask YOU for your ideas? Seriously, am I supposed to do some penance to get into your good graces? You insult me and call me names as if you of all people had the right to do so. What makes you so high and mighty? Your little myth collection?

And I have no problem with people believing in whatever, but when they confuse their religion with actual science and reality, then I can say so. You don’t have a problem castigating me for calling people on their crap, why can I not take issue with those who justify their willful ignorance with the usually god-did-it?

You are a hypocrite and attacking me personally does not make Me the troll, it is rather You who needs to check his attitude at the door. Or did you get elected god just today?

Oh, if I want to be an Atheist Triple Goddess, then so be it, who are you to find fault with that? You clearly are short changed in the sense of humor department.

So stop frothing at the mouth and threatening me. it just makes you look weak and whiny.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Maybe it's time to create a new troll-category. We could just call him fantasy troller. That way we need not chastise him for trolling, after all he does have redeeming qualities.

I'll double down on this and call 2 as a troll, aco as a poe and..
M Night Shallamalamma style twist ending...
...both same person.

 

[Parsimony]

Can we get a mod to break this up?

 

[Simurgh]

Can we get a mod to break this up?

Not necessary, it's getting boring.

 

[McBell]

Can we get a mod to break this up?

The fastest way to get a Moderator involved is to report posts...

 

[rusra02]

I take note that you consider "evolutionists" less thinking people.

You still do not understand, like all creationists, that chance is not the only game in town. What you need are

- Small random mutations (chance): the main driver of fresh new information, either useful or not (mostly not)
- Advantage of survival and reproduction if the tiny mutation is useful in the current environment (not chance)
- Transmission of the mutation to the offsprings which will enjoy the same advantage towards reproduction and transmission of the same mutation (not chance)
- Disappearance of the organisms which do not have the useful mutation (not chance)

It is obvious then, that many tiny useful random mutations will accumulate to provide arbitrarily high levels of complexity automatically. All you need is time, which is plenty given the geological scale of the age of the earth.

What is so difficult to accept about it, more thinking guy? Please name the step you find difficult to accept.

Ciao

- viole

Well, mutation research has been ongoing for decades, with well-funded research laboratories hoping to create entirely new species of plants and animals. This quote from g09/06 sums up the results:
"Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
Regarding such mutants the article states: "Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Thus, the premise that chance mutations produce new and better plants and animals is untrue and proven to be untrue.

 

[rusra02]

Complexity does not necessarily mean in need of a creator. God is a complex structure, who created him? Who created his creator? and so on...

That is a common question, and one the Bible answers, IMO. Regarding our Creator, Psalm 36:9 states: "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light."
The true God Jehovah is unique. The Bible affirms that*"Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Psalm 90:2)
This, God has always existed and always will. Just as space, time, and numbers seem to have no beginning nor end, Jehovah is infinite, I believe, and the Source of all the universe. (Revelation 4:11)
All the evidence indicates complex systems DO need a creator or designer.

 

[Looncall]

Well, mutation research has been ongoing for decades, with well-funded research laboratories hoping to create entirely new species of plants and animals. This quote from g09/06 sums up the results:
"Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
Regarding such mutants the article states: "Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Thus, the premise that chance mutations produce new and better plants and animals is untrue and proven to be untrue.

You and the crackpot you quote are barking up the wrong tree. Any species, at any point in time, produces slightly different progeny. Significant change comes from slight changes accumulating over time.

What is meant by "entirely new species" anyway? The notion of species us fuzzy at best. Only primitive essentialist thinking expects otherwise.

Isn't it time you lot quit complaining that large changes don't happen suddenly? Only the religion-addled think that that should ever happen.

 

[McBell]

All the evidence indicates complex systems DO need a creator or designer.

So why do you make your favorite god an exception?

 

[viole]

Well, mutation research has been ongoing for decades, with well-funded research laboratories hoping to create entirely new species of plants and animals. This quote from g09/06 sums up the results:
"Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
Regarding such mutants the article states: "Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Thus, the premise that chance mutations produce new and better plants and animals is untrue and proven to be untrue.

Nope, it says "Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values," which is also in my first premise, when I say most mutations are not beneficial. You should read more carefully what you post.

"Almost all" does not equate "all". Everybody knows that, or should know that. And it is also obvious that the not-beneficial ones are wiped out immediately.

But if the attribute is "Almost" then it is obvious that it is just a question of time before one is beneficial. After all the events are random, so if they would all be not-beneficial, then they would not be perfectly random to start with.


So, my premises still hold, for what concerns the natural iterative accumulation of arbitrary levels of complexity without designer.

Would you like to discuss another one that you might find difficult to accept?

Ciao

- viole

 

[starless]

Well, mutation research has been ongoing for decades, with well-funded research laboratories hoping to create entirely new species of plants and animals. This quote from g09/06 sums up the results:
"Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
Regarding such mutants the article states: "Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Thus, the premise that chance mutations produce new and better plants and animals is untrue and proven to be untrue.

You should have paid more attention in school. This material is usually covered in the 9th grade.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

That is a common question, and one the Bible answers, IMO. Regarding our Creator, Psalm 36:9 states: "With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light."
The true God Jehovah is unique. The Bible affirms that*"Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Psalm 90:2)
This, God has always existed and always will. Just as space, time, and numbers seem to have no beginning nor end, Jehovah is infinite, I believe, and the Source of all the universe. (Revelation 4:11)
All the evidence indicates complex systems DO need a creator or designer.

So then God is a complex being that did not need a creator... So that only affirms my point. Just because something is complex, does not necessarily mean it had a creator.

 

[Apostlelypse]

Not necessary, it's getting boring.

You could have just not replied, but of course you're a troll and you usually do. Beta.

 

[rusra02]

You and the crackpot you quote are barking up the wrong tree. Any species, at any point in time, produces slightly different progeny. Significant change comes from slight changes accumulating over time.

What is meant by "entirely new species" anyway? The notion of species us fuzzy at best. Only primitive essentialist thinking expects otherwise.

Isn't it time you lot quit complaining that large changes don't happen suddenly? Only the religion-addled think that that should ever happen.

That's the point. "Significant" changes do not occur by mutations, at least not beneficial ones, as evolution theorists claim.

 

[rusra02]

So why do you make your favorite god an exception?

The God who created all things has claimed credit for doing so, as any inventor is likely to do. He also assures us "“I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth." (Isaiah 44:24,
"I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me. " (Isaiah 45:5)
Thus Jehovah declares he is the ultimate first Cause, the Source of everything else. I believe no one can successfully contradict his words.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The God who created all things has claimed credit for doing so, as any inventor is likely to do. He also assures us "“I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth." (Isaiah 44:24,
"I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me. " (Isaiah 45:5)
Thus Jehovah declares he is the ultimate first Cause, the Source of everything else. I believe no one can successfully contradict his words.

But he is complex, and all complex things have to have a creator, right? So... Who created him?

 

[McBell]

The God who created all things has claimed credit for doing so, as any inventor is likely to do. He also assures us "“I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth." (Isaiah 44:24,
"I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me. " (Isaiah 45:5)
Thus Jehovah declares he is the ultimate first Cause, the Source of everything else. I believe no one can successfully contradict his words.

You did not answer the question:

All the evidence indicates complex systems DO need a creator or designer.

So why do you make your favorite god an exception?

Please note that I am not a choir member so your use of circular reasoning does not impress me in the slightest.

 

[rusra02]

Nope, it says "Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values," which is also in my first premise, when I say most mutations are not beneficial. You should read more carefully what you post.

"Almost all" does not equate "all". Everybody knows that, or should know that. And it is also obvious that the not-beneficial ones are wiped out immediately.

But if the attribute is "Almost" then it is obvious that it is just a question of time before one is beneficial. After all the events are random, so if they would all be not-beneficial, then they would not be perfectly random to start with.


So, my premises still hold, for what concerns the natural iterative accumulation of arbitrary levels of complexity without designer.

Would you like to discuss another one that you might find difficult to accept?

Ciao

- viole

Almost all people who buy lottery tickets never win. The fact that a few do win the lottery shouldn't cause you to invest in lottery tickets. Mutations are far more likely to be fatal, or weaken an organism than to impart anything beneficial. And as Dr. Lönnig's research proved, mutations do not create anything new.

 

[outhouse]

And yet nothing you say will change the facts regarding how factual evolution is.

Your personal perversion of the facts of evolution is noted.