God, Real or Fake? Options

[DeadlyKitten]

When it comes down to it, science can only go so far. There is a God. There is a greater power that started the growth of a seed, the heart beat of a lion, and the love inside your soul. Loook deep inside yourself then look at the stars. It's hard not to believe.

*Not everyone is a believer, and I accept that*

-Don't take me posting this as a bash tword people that don't believe. A few of my best friends don't believe in God and thats fine.

I posted this to see how people felt on the subject. I put how I felt. I want to know how you feel

[NoSex]

2. I realize Nietzsche meant that God was dead to men. Exactly why I said religion is growing. Please, actually read what I'm typing to you instead of trying to be an elitist jerk-off.

But, see, you miss the point: Nietzsche is concerned, greatly, with perspectivism. This is because he realizes the power of belief and is concerned greatly with The Will to Power, or man's desire to impose those powerful beliefs on others. The issue is that with more and more modern society we have scientific, philosophical, psychological, and sociological paradigm shifts. Because of these new discoveries, our society effectively changes. We no longer believe that mentally retarded individuals are cursed by demons, instead, we can begin to explain their maladies and treat them more appropriate (as opposed to praying over them or burning them). We no longer believe the world to be the center of the universe and thus have been given enormous perspective as our "true" place in this life.

Essentially, society has greatly shifted from a world which was dominated and controlled by outside and unexplained forces - our technology and new sciences have been able disspell a great majority of the myths that once were propagated on this pale blue dot. Most of any of the gods that had ever lived, Osiris, Zeus, Dionysus, The Sun, are dead. They no longer effect our lives or our society in such a forceful manner. The same is most certainly true for the Juedo-Christian Gods - at least in the sense that they have changed greatly from what they once were, even since during Nietzsche's time. The reality is that even if God is believed in, his influence is of an entirely different nature - most people aren't going to deny medicine because of "god's will." So, I propose, that Nietzsche was far more correct than you ever put on.

Also, me believing that micro-evolution exists while believing that macro-evolution does not exist doesn't any way contradict each other.

Sure, it isn't a direct contradiction. However, what you don't seem to realize is that these two concepts just represent a gradation of one more central idea - evolutionary theory. Micoevolutionary change is merely in specious allele variation and transformation while macroevolutionary change is the actual speciation after the accumulation of allele transformation through mutation, genetic drift, hybridization, etc. etc. They are both the same thing, essentially. They both move from the same exact principles. They both operate on exactly the same mechanisms. It's just that, one is going much further than the other and all you need to believe in the one is time. The accumulation of small evolutionary changes increases the genetic different in a population, once the genetic difference reaches a point of enough variation an animal with speciate and "macroevolve" when, really, all that is happening is one other "microevolution" being stack on top of a few generations worth of other "microevolutions." Are you beginning to see why these terms are exactly popular in the biological fields? They aren't exactly meaningfully divided - they don't actually represent anything fundamentally different.

The only place you find these terms used so frequently are from the mouth of babes - creationists love these terms. It allows them to more easily deceive themselves as well as their parishes. But, really, it just makes them look that much more ignorant and or deceptive. Sure, it isn't exactly a contradiction, but it's against all observation, study, and evidence, to suggest that macroevolution simply hasn't occurred, especially when you have no issue with micoevolutionary change.

I still have yet to see hard evidence for macro-evolution. Instead of telling me there's thousands and thousands of books that have evolution proven, then please do give me links to those books. If evolution was truly proven 100%, then we wouldn't have this debate, then.

1. Well, actually, macro-evolution can been proven a lot more easily than by reflection of micro-evolution. Try the fact that we have witnesses dozens and dozens of instances of speciation (or macro-evolution), in both the laboratory and in nature, in the last century [1]. Hard enough for you?

2. Go to a f**king library, it isn't that hard. All you're demonstrating to me is that you never had the honest curiosity to actually investigate the issue seriously yourself.

3. I wonder why you don't believe in it? Think about it. f**k, there are still people who don't believe that the Earth is spherical or that we revolve around the Sun. But, I suspect that your religious faith gives you something, emotionally, that this science just can't offer you, and as Lemuel K. Washburn once said, "most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion." I plead psychological selection of data. Clearly you haven't read the literature, and, if you're as dispassionate as you would like us to think, maybe if you did take some time to read a f**king book, we wouldn't even be here right now.

God is irrational. Emotion is irrational. Love is irrational. These things can't be scientifically explained, so don't try to do it.

Evolution is rational. Cars are rational. Apples falling is irrational. These things can't be scientifically disproven, so don't try.

You're really not helping any cause here.