The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[Maddog121]

Your post reminded me of this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

"It is sometimes hard, in times like these, to understand God's way. Why would he allow nine innocent people to be run down in the prime of their lives by a senior citizen who, perhaps, shouldn't be driving? It is then that we must understand, God's sense of humor is very different from our own. He does not laugh at the simple "man walks into a bar" joke. No, God needs complex irony and subtle farcical twists that seem macabre to you and me. All that we can hope for is that God got his good laugh and a tragedy such as this will never happen again."
Father Maxi, South Park Grey Dawn episode.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The bones/fossils, if they continue to exist at all (which they rarely do), are very mangled and warped from their original form


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't contest the fragility of fossils though I don't really know the science of it - don't we have a lot of invertebrate fossils which must be more fragile than primates? But if the fossil record doesn't exist at all, if it isn't just a matter of not having found them yet, doesn't that make the one common ancestor theory unfalsifiable? I've said I don't place a lot of weight on that concept but for those evolutionists who claim ID isn't science because of that it's a valid counter argument.

[ QUOTE ]

To be fair, the only reason I think that we have to believe that humans are special and come from so me special lineage is purely religious...or ignorant...in nature.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the fossil record will never be able to validate human evolution you might want to consider the irreducibly complex argument - though not perfect, in conjunction with other aspects, such as probability, you might find it is a worth adversary to random mutation. To just say "ignorant" and "religious" isn't very perceptive

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

We use these terms because they are useful, but we must recognise them for what they are; human labels.


[/ QUOTE ]

But if the gradualism of Darwinism is true there would have been many identifiable intermediaries. I'm sure the differences between those fossils we have and h omo sapiens would require quite a few steps that would show up in fossils. If not, then I don't see how Darwinism makes a better case than ID from the evidence - both would explain the fossil record, but both would be highly speculative.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it's obvious from the # of denominations and beliefs on various issues that this authority would be very subjective and subject to interpretation


[/ QUOTE ]

God's Word has always been controversial, even before the first sin. Satan asked Eve, "Has God said?" If we have difficulty understanding, God promises He will reveal the truth to those who genuinely seek Him. His authority is not subjective. Each must act according to his own conscience. God is a just judge. But our difficulty is not an excuse.

[ QUOTE ]

People don't disbelieve in God because they think they'll have to then abide by certain rules. You are deluding yourself if you think so. They disbelieve either because they haven't thought much about it, or they have and come to the conclusion that there's not enough evidence to persuade them of his existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

People may not think about it much but that is no excuse. I believe one reason they don't is they don't want to know the truth because they know, deep down, what they are and Who God is. The Bible clearly states that God makes Himself known to everyone and that everyone seeks to suppress that knowledge. If that's not true of you then you probably have nothing to worry about. As to evidence, there is more than enough - enough to make all responsible for ignoring God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Atheists should NOT be allowed to "teach atheism" in schools, and for the most part, they don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a way to teach evolution as a theory without also promoting atheism. I think much will depend on how it's presented and probably would even include the teacher's attitude and tone of voice. Over that we have no control, nor should we. I don't really know exactly what's being taught in public schools, but by way of example of how there can be a problem -- maurile gave me a site that lists the "human family tree", but the first entry is not considered an ancestor by all evolutionists. If a teacher did this in class with no mention of the questionable nature of that entry, and then goes on to assert that it's a proven fact that man evolved from primates, I would have a problem. Most of this is going to be decided by textbooks and I think the recent law suits have involved this type question. No matter how you phrase it man's evolution just hasn't reached the status of the law of gravity.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

For some reason, people tend to understand this about gravity, but not about biological evolution. I'm not sure exactly why.


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of it has to do with people like Sagan and Dawkins. A lot of it has to do with asserting it happened by chance. And most of it probably has to do with the undeniability of gravity and the roundness of the earth compared to the theory of evolution.

[hmkpoker]

First off, again, I don't know the fossil record well enough to say conclusively that it supports evolution to your satisfaction. Haven't researched it. Someone earlier posted links to fossil skulls and suchlike, but I won't bother looking since I know it won't satisfy your criteria.

Regardless, I don't see human fossil records as necessary criteria to support the notion that humans evolved from other, simpler species, to a reasonable level of confidence. Based on the premises that:

A) Humans and animals have to come from somewhere. Humans and animals always (as far as we've seen) come from parents of ~same* species.**

B) Humans are animals, with very similar genetic and biological structures to other mammals, particularly apes.

C) We know that animal species evolve, that is, mutate over long periods of time and go through natural selection.

Based on these premises, evolution from other species seems to be the logical resulting theory.


* "~same" is to identify that the parent species bears 99.9999whatever genetic similarity to the offspring, and that that infinitessimal difference is what allows for evolution. To our imprecise eyes, however, they appear the "same."

** Yes, the parents had to come from someone, and that someone from someone, etc ad nauseum until we get to a "first cause." This exists outside the range of biology, and seems better handled by physics. It is irrelevent to the subject matter.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
There's probably a way to teach evolution as a theory without also promoting atheism. I think much will depend on how it's presented and probably would even include the teacher's attitude and tone of voice. Over that we have no control, nor should we.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But as long as the teacher isn't saying things like "there is no god" I don't see how it promotes atheism. The only way I could see for a teacher to promote atheism would be to teach a class on Western Philosophy, which is a cornerstone of atheist thinking (MUCH moreso than evolution), and is almost never included in the high school curriculum, and if it is, it is an elective.

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how you phrase it man's evolution just hasn't reached the status of the law of gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Because a lot of people don't believe it. (I recognise the approaching circular argument "Well I don't believe it because it hasn't reached the status of the law of gravity," and I don't want to discuss it. The fact is that if as many people believed in evolution as do gravity, it would stand as the testament to its merit)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For some reason, people tend to understand this about gravity, but not about biological evolution. I'm not sure exactly why.


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of it has to do with people like Sagan and Dawkins. A lot of it has to do with asserting it happened by chance. And most of it probably has to do with the undeniability of gravity and the roundness of the earth compared to the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not undeniable.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

it's obvious from the # of denominations and beliefs on various issues that this authority would be very subjective and subject to interpretation


[/ QUOTE ]

God's Word has always been controversial, even before the first sin. Satan asked Eve, "Has God said?" If we have difficulty understanding, God promises He will reveal the truth to those who genuinely seek Him. His authority is not subjective. Each must act according to his own conscience. God is a just judge. But our difficulty is not an excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point. Believing in God doesn't automatically subject someone to any particular rule. So, thinking people don't believe in God because they don't want to abide by a certain rule or rules, is delusional. The numerous religions and denominations attest to this fact.