P
phooney
Guest
Haven’t you heard, A? They think Yahweh is the one true god. 
- Status
P
phooney
Guest
@BCH
Bilateral symmetry is well understood in evolutionary biology. Food or predators are no more likely to come at you from the right or left. As life first evolved in the oceans, food and predators WERE more likely to come at you from below or above however, at the bottom is the ground where various things hide, above is where the light comes from, the direction you see silhouettes. I’m sure you will notice, generally, in the animal kingdom, and in particular in the oceans, animals are quite often lighter on the bottom and darker on the top to take advantage of the differences between up and down. That is why there is not so much symmetry vertically.
As far as front/back symmetry, those organisms that were better able to propell themselves were better able to catch food and avoid predators, it makes sense to be able to propell yourself in the direction you can see and the direction you can bite. That is why there is not so much symmetry front/back.
Note that not all animals are bilaterally symmetrical, some are radially symetrical like starfish for example.
Part of Richard Dawkins’ book “The Ancestors Tale” deals with your question here specifically.
I Hope my crude explanation helps.
Bilateral symmetry is well understood in evolutionary biology. Food or predators are no more likely to come at you from the right or left. As life first evolved in the oceans, food and predators WERE more likely to come at you from below or above however, at the bottom is the ground where various things hide, above is where the light comes from, the direction you see silhouettes. I’m sure you will notice, generally, in the animal kingdom, and in particular in the oceans, animals are quite often lighter on the bottom and darker on the top to take advantage of the differences between up and down. That is why there is not so much symmetry vertically.
As far as front/back symmetry, those organisms that were better able to propell themselves were better able to catch food and avoid predators, it makes sense to be able to propell yourself in the direction you can see and the direction you can bite. That is why there is not so much symmetry front/back.
Note that not all animals are bilaterally symmetrical, some are radially symetrical like starfish for example.
Part of Richard Dawkins’ book “The Ancestors Tale” deals with your question here specifically.
I Hope my crude explanation helps.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I didn’t think that that was the issue. The issue was the question of the “falsifiability” of belief in God which you had raised, to which I was responding.
This is a different issue entirely. To address this particular objection, I would have to narrow my answers to within the focus of my own religion, because it is “religion-specific”. I am a Mormon, not a Catholic (or a Jew, or Moslem, or whatever); and the way in which I would try to address it would be different from the way they might do so. I would never try to “prove” the existence of God to anybody; nor would I feel I have the obligation to do so. It is not my job to try to prove to anybody that God exists. It is God’s job to do that. It is not something that God has required of me to do. The only thing that I am required to do is to preach and to testify of the truth of my religion to anyone who is willing to hear it, and invite them to examine it impartially, and apply a certain test which we believe if correctly applied God will reveal the truth of it by personal revelation to them. Now if somebody does not believe in God, or thinks that what we teach is a load of baloney, that is OK with us. We politely say goodbye, and carry our message to someone else. It is not our responsibility to try to “prove” anything to anybody who does not believe in God. As it happens, there are plenty of takers. Our Church is the fastest growing church in the world, so there are no shortage of people who are willing to hear our message. Our message is intended for them. But if somebody doesn’t happen to believe in God, or is not interested in our message, no sweat; we part company, and go to those who are interested.
That is a curious statement. Did you used to be a Jehovah’s Witness by any chance? First of all, “god” may include Zeus and Apollo, but “God” (capital G) doesn’t. In monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), the word “God” refers to the one true God; and that is what most of the people on this board are. Everybody understands what we mean by the word “God” in English. We mean the One God that all monotheistic religions worship, be they Jews, Christians, or Moslems. It is the generic title for the One God in English; and everyone else understands that too. Yahweh may mean the same thing; but it is a less commonly used word in English, hence it is a less frequently used word for that purpose. What is your beef with Jehovah/God?
zerinus
N
notself
Guest
The fastest growing religion in the USA is Wicca followed by Neo Pagan.
religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
The fastest growing religion in the world is Islam followed by Bahai.
foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3835
Wiki indicates that the fastest growing religion in Australia is Buddhism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion
In reality no one knows what religion is the fastest growing. It could be Pastafaria, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
venganza.org/
J
Jacafamala
Guest
Precisely my point,A. An acorn wouldn’t, nor would an oak. It’s only God who can orchestrate such things.
If it were so, than the universe might be God, what do you think? Ever heard of the anthropic principle?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
My book “talks” about it. The anthropic principle reveals a physical universe designed expressly for human life.
In all honesty I’m glad to hear it and certainly wish all atheists the very best of health. Anyway, where do I get the idea, you ask? Why, that darn book of mine! Seriously, I don’t need this sort of proof, because I’m living it—the Faith, 20+ years worth of it and the proof really is in the proverbial pudding. Personal experience really is everything. But I can definitely understand why you and others do need proof. And in addition, I just sorta find the research interesting:
-A major 1972 study examined death from various causes among adults in Washington County, Maryland, in relation to church attendance. Factors such as smoking, socioeconomic status, and water hardness were controlled for statistically. Findings were as follows: (1) Risk of arteriosclerotic heart disease for men who attended church frequently was just 60 percent of that for men who were infrequent church attenders. (2) Among women, risk of dying from ateriosclerotic heart disease, pulmonary emphysema, and suicide was twice as high among infrequent as among frequent church attenders. (3) Women who attended church infrequently were four times as likely as frequent church attenders to die from cirrhosis of the liver (a finding that may relate to the data showing much lower levels of alcohol abuse among the religiously committed).
G.W. Comstalk and K.B. Partridge, “Church Attendance and Health,” Journal of Chronic Disease 25 (1972): 665-672; cited in David B. Larson and Susan S. Larson, The Forgotten Factor in Physical and Mental Health: What Does Research Show? Rockville, Md: National Institute for Healthcare Research, pp. 111-112.
-Blood pressure has been shown to be strongly correlated with religious commitments and church attendance. Religiously committed people and frequent church attenders have, on average, significantly lower blood pressure that do the religiously noncommited and those who attend church infrequently. A 1989 study of rural men by Larson and others found that those who counted religion as very important in their lives and frequently attended church had, on average, diagnostic pressure levels nearly 5 millimeters lower than did those who counted religion as unimportant and attended church infrequently. The effects were so profound as to suggest a public health justification for encouraging more frequent church attendance, since a reduction I blood pressure by as little as 2 to 4 millimeters in a population could bring a 10 to 20 percent decline in cardiovascular disease.
D.B. Larson et al., “the Impact of Religion on Men’s Blood pressure,” Journal of Religion and Health 28, no.4 (1989): pp. 265-278; cited in Larson and Larson, pp. 115-118.
There’s more, just like this. You want to see it? Let me know if you‘d like to see it.
Indeed.
Z
zerinus
Guest
That figure was arrived at by independent non-LDS sources; but that is not really the most important consideration here. The point I was trying to make is that it is a fast growing church (even if it is not the fastest), and therefore there are no shortages of people who are willing to listen to our message. Our message is intended for those who are willing to hear it and act upon it—and there are plenty of those. If somebody is an atheist or whatever, and is not interested in our message, it is not our job to argue with them. Their fate remains in the hand of God. Our job is to take our message to those who are willing to hear it.
zerinus
N
notself
Guest
I think the LDS tradtion of having young people go on missions is an excellent one. What dedication for the family to send a teen away from home and financially support that child for a year to two years on top of the cost of college. They must worry so to have their child approaching strangers day in and day out.
What courage in the child to leave home and spend each day knocking on the doors of strangers explaining the LDS beliefs. Missionaries risk ridicule, threats and just plain crazies.
The LDS dedication in developing, expanding and maintaining geneologies has been a major contribution to society. It is one place that African Americans can go to trace their ancestry back to sections of Africa.
Lot’s of good things about LDS.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Okay, Thanksgiving is done, the kids are tucked away and my belly is stuffed.
First off, A, maybe I meant border waters. The waters between Canada and US, particularly above Minessota. It’s been about ten years, but an incredible trip. Had a bear raid our camp 4 times. Caught a lot of fish. Saw a moose a day and the Northern lights.
Anyway, I’m a little bothered by the way you continue to more narrowly define, without qualification, what counts as evidence. Not only must it be unconditionally falsifiable, but it must be simply stated and “big news”. I think the last two points are presumptious. I happen to believe that, for some of us, God presents a challenge because (at least in my case) a great amount of maturity happens in that process. Anyway, you asked for some of the evidence that I use to come to the conclusion that God exists. Here’s a start:
Is any of these arguments conclusive in and of themselves? Maybe for some. For me, however, it was the combination of them (including others I have not listed) that pointed to the simplest explanation of a God who created all and revealed himself through the person of Jesus Christ. As you respond to them, please make your responses as simple as you required of my explanations.
Peace
First off, A, maybe I meant border waters. The waters between Canada and US, particularly above Minessota. It’s been about ten years, but an incredible trip. Had a bear raid our camp 4 times. Caught a lot of fish. Saw a moose a day and the Northern lights.
Anyway, I’m a little bothered by the way you continue to more narrowly define, without qualification, what counts as evidence. Not only must it be unconditionally falsifiable, but it must be simply stated and “big news”. I think the last two points are presumptious. I happen to believe that, for some of us, God presents a challenge because (at least in my case) a great amount of maturity happens in that process. Anyway, you asked for some of the evidence that I use to come to the conclusion that God exists. Here’s a start:
- Water doesn’t rise above its source and the effect can’t be greater than its cause, but somehow rationality has been caused by random interchange of non-rational matter.
- There appears to be evidence of design in our universe, from the irreducibly complex nature of some organisms to the harmony that had to exist in the creation of the universe and in the stability of the smallest. The teleological argument may not be enough to convince you, but it was enough for the famed atheist Anthony Flew.
- The scientific prediction of the heat death of the universe does not jive with the idea of an eternally existing universe as an infinite amount of time would have already reached this conclusion, indicating the probability (notice I didn’t say certainty) of a first cause.
- The mere existence of the universe when there is simply no need for matter or energy to have existed in the first place seems to indicate a contigent being.
- The prediction of a heat death or big freeze for the universe also does not jive with the idea of an eternal motion within the universe and infinite existance, indicating the probability of a first mover.
- Miracles, including:
A-The existence, unexplained by science, of the incorruptable corpses (with no apparent source of preservation) of men and women whose lives were marked by holiness.
B- Stigmatas
C- Eucharistic miracles - The perserverance of the institution of the Catholic Church for two-thousand years.
- The prophesies that Christ fulfilled.
- Historical testimony to Christ’s death and resurrection.
- The testimony of martyrs to his death and resurrection.
Is any of these arguments conclusive in and of themselves? Maybe for some. For me, however, it was the combination of them (including others I have not listed) that pointed to the simplest explanation of a God who created all and revealed himself through the person of Jesus Christ. As you respond to them, please make your responses as simple as you required of my explanations.
Peace
L
Laserus
Guest
No one will ever be able to give to A an answer that he will acknowledge. His problem is is a combination of pride and hate. Both have blinded him to be open to the working of the Holy Spirit. In his present state of mind he is not looking for proof of God he is just venting, and you all are his targets. Misery loves company. Some of us that post on these forums most likely have been like him and had the same attitude he exibits. i know i have been there and done that. We all have free will and God honors that. He will not force anyone to beleive and if anyone slams the door on him he will not force it open even though he could. But he does stand at the door and knock, each of us have to open the door to let Him in. He says to all “Come let us reason together.” Most everyone on this forum would love to have people like A instanly healed of their disbelief . but sadly sometimes it just doesnt happen . In my case it took 50 years by Gods grace to break down my disbelief. And i have to say i finally have peace. and a great love of my Lord Jesus. I Pray A that you will find this before you die.
J
johnnydigit
Guest
you are who you are. you will learn why things aren’t perfect later. your first step is to decide if there is an uncaused cause or not, and go from there. many of the arguments here are making you skip far ahead, which is useless to your current understanding.
imo, start at the beginning (inasmuch as you understand what the “beginning” may be) and work your way forward.
i’d be interested in hearing an atheist’s thoughts on the above link and what it presents…
B
BCH
Guest
Bascially, I think that you are saying that the forces of nature will cause this to happen. Sounds OK. But, I’m still in awe of how these forces came about to produce such creatures. To me, it still suggests an intelligent force has designed this. It’s less logical, in my mind, to think that this just happened, willy-nilly.
I get the same feeling when I watch the snow falling. Coming down, it looks like chaos. When all is done, a beautiful pattern is lying on the ground. I am sure that can be explained by science but it still leads me to see a creators hand in the consruction of those very forces of nature.
F
FamilyGuy
Guest
This is sounding like a “God of the Gaps” argument come to life.
When we figured out how to make fire, we no longer needed a fire God.
When we figured out how the Earth moved around the Sun, we didn’t need a God who was driving a golden chariot across the sky.
When we figured out that small changes in living material over generations are why we are different from each other - we no longer require a God that is the Creator of all.
Not to hijack the topic, but can someone explain to me why people from east Asia look different from Caucasians look different from African-Americans? Considering that the human race was supposedly redacted to less than a dozen individuals about the time the Sumerians were discovering glue, it doesn’t seem likely that all of the different races in the world were present on the Ark.
When we figured out how to make fire, we no longer needed a fire God.
When we figured out how the Earth moved around the Sun, we didn’t need a God who was driving a golden chariot across the sky.
When we figured out that small changes in living material over generations are why we are different from each other - we no longer require a God that is the Creator of all.
Not to hijack the topic, but can someone explain to me why people from east Asia look different from Caucasians look different from African-Americans? Considering that the human race was supposedly redacted to less than a dozen individuals about the time the Sumerians were discovering glue, it doesn’t seem likely that all of the different races in the world were present on the Ark.
A
_A
Guest
The flounder is an example of an animal that is not left-right symmetrical.LandBigFish.com 404 Error Page Not Found
A
_A
Guest
Thank you for asking again - it has been busy here
I did answer about falsifiability. What I said was that it was not my sole criteria, it was a red flag to me when someones theory was not falsifiable.
No, whoever makes a claim such as ‘my god exists’ holds the ‘burden of proof’. Lots of folks will accept what you say without proof, of course. Lots of folks follow the teachings of David Icke, too. I don’t mean that you have to prove it to me or I won’t believe - I already mentioned a few times that I am not a believer. What I mean is, I don’t need to provide proof that there are no gods. This is because I am making no extraordinary claim when I say this. You don’t have to go disproving Zeus or Apollo just because you aren’t a follower of those gods, someone asserting that they exist would be the person who needed to provide the evidence.
Didn’t that church get invented by a couple of guys a couple of hundred years ago in the States? I guess it is as likely as any other to be true, but why choose that belief over, say islam?
If you are required to teach the truth, would it not be quite important to discover the truth? Would you accept that your personal experience may be wrong and look at evidence available to all only?
Well, it just seems to me as odd as when you go into a doctors office and the receptionist says something like “Doctor will see you now” as if there were no other doctors…I guess it is a further expression of the belief that Allah is the one true god. Thanks.
A
_A
Guest
That doesn’t matter. Just because it ‘feels good’ doesn’t have anything to do with the truth of the proposition. Maybe church-goers are more likely to sing, and that is what is making them healthy.
Good try, but other studies have shown that faith is unhealthy (look at countries where churches have gained more political power, and I think you will agree that quality of life degrades. Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc.)
A
_A
Guest
I haven’t heard much about that. Is it a style of fishing, or a species of fish?
J
Jacafamala
Guest
Great post. I was just going to come and bring up a few of these same points. In addition, check out the testimony of some exorcists.
marianland.com/stjosephcom4/interviewwithanexcorcistby.html
Padre Pio
padrepio.net/
Fatima
ewtn.com/fatima/
Lourdes/St. Bernadette
catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/ba_bernadette_intro.htm
- Status