Why I believe God exists......

[Rooster_DAR]

Without getting into a long "diatribe" (per disgracian ), where do you get the figure that 99% of all creatures (including plants and animals) are extinct? I am not saying that it is wrong, but has this been proven or tested so that we many know that it is fact?

 

I do know that Stephen Gould (who now is dead and has witnessed the Final Test so indicated by Moose ) "estimated" that 99% of all animals and plants that ever existed have already become extinct...with most leaving no fossils.

 

Pray tell...how can one estimate this number? And I hope the answer is not...because we know that in order for the current species to have evolved to their current state, there must have been so many extinct species.

 

So, a simple question...how do we know that 99% of all animals and plants have become extinct?

 

From fossil records we know that there were at least 5 major cataclysmic disasters that destroyed much of life on earth. 2 of them nearly decimated all life on earth. These conclusions are drawn by geological studies and fossil records along with modern dating techniques. Giving the time period from the last event until now, it makes sense that there are less species now than before.

 

The Permian extinction (which is thought to have originated in Siberia), almost took out all like on the planet. Digging through layers of rock that are around 250 Million years old you find layers where there are many species, then suddenly you find a layer where almost no life exists at all for thousand and perhaps millions of years.

 

I guess the easy answer would be mass extinctions!

 

Cheers.

[Rooster_DAR]

From fossil records we know that there were at least 5 major cataclysmic disasters that destroyed much of life on earth. 2 of them nearly decimated all life on earth. These conclusions are drawn by geological studies and fossil records along with modern dating techniques. Giving the time period from the last event until now, it makes sense that there are less species now than before.

 

The Permian extinction (which is thought to have originated in Siberia), almost took out all like on the planet. Digging through layers of rock that are around 250 Million years old you find layers where there are many species, then suddenly you find a layer where almost no life exists at all for thousand and perhaps millions of years.

 

I guess the easy answer would be mass extinctions!

 

Cheers.

 

Almost forgot another main contributer, evolution of the species.

 

Cheers!

[lonelybird]

How about "soul evolution"? Do you have any "soul fossil"?

[Alter ego]

This thread opens with what is known as the Anthropic Principle, which like all the other arguments for the existence of 'God', leaves much to be desired. If you want to learn more about the objections, Google it.

[Trimmer]

This thread opens with what is known as the Anthropic Principle, which like all the other arguments for the existence of 'God', leaves much to be desired. If you want to learn more about the objections, Google it.

I had noticed that, too. It is an elegant point, however it tends to only resonate with the already-convinced. Of course, I guess that describes most of the arguments on either side...

[JamesM]

From fossil records we know that there were at least 5 major cataclysmic disasters that destroyed much of life on earth. 2 of them nearly decimated all life on earth. These conclusions are drawn by geological studies and fossil records along with modern dating techniques. Giving the time period from the last event until now, it makes sense that there are less species now than before.

 

The Permian extinction (which is thought to have originated in Siberia), almost took out all like on the planet. Digging through layers of rock that are around 250 Million years old you find layers where there are many species, then suddenly you find a layer where almost no life exists at all for thousand and perhaps millions of years.

 

I guess the easy answer would be mass extinctions!

 

Cheers.

 

Rooster, thanks for your input.

 

From my research in the Evolution Department in the Library, there are two views regarding life on earth. One says that there have been major disasters that killed life. The other says that evolution was gradual. So how can you sau "we know?" We don't...do we? Both are speculatory theories, aren't they?

 

How come it "makes sense" that there are less species now? Doesn't evolution produce more species as time continues?

 

But this doesn't seem to answer my question.

 

If "most" species (per Dr Gould) do not have fossils, then isn't it simply speculation that 99% of all species have died off? Yes, there are fossils of species no longer on earth, so "we can say" that at least this many have died off, but to say that 99% of all creatures/plants have died off...where does this number come from?

 

I am gathering that this number does not come from a fact or evidence. It is simply a calculation.

[Moai]

Rooster, thanks for your input.

 

From my research in the Evolution Department in the Library, there are two views regarding life on earth. One says that there have been major disasters that killed life. The other says that evolution was gradual. So how can you sau "we know?" We don't...do we? Both are speculatory theories, aren't they?

 

No. They aren't "speculatory" at all. They are two different explanations for the facts that we see, each has its problems. As data comes in one may be right, or neither. Punctuated equillibrium seems to have the best legs at this point. None of this has anything to do with whether evolution happens or not. Didn't you gather that from your reading?

 

How come it "makes sense" that there are less species now? Doesn't evolution produce more species as time continues?

 

There are more. There is more biodiversity on Earth now than there ever has been. That said, if you took all of the species we know of on Earth RIGHT NOW and added them up, and added up all the ones that have existed in the past, most have existed before now. And are dead.

 

But this doesn't seem to answer my question.

 

If "most" species (per Dr Gould) do not have fossils, then isn't it simply speculation that 99% of all species have died off? Yes, there are fossils of species no longer on earth, so "we can say" that at least this many have died off, but to say that 99% of all creatures/plants have died off...where does this number come from?

 

Because of the species that have fossilized. Since we know how things fossilize, and we can see how many fossils we have, we can estimate the total number of animals based on the amount of fossils. I am sure that there are thousands of life forms that have existed we will have no idea about, since no specimen fossilized.

 

I am gathering that this number does not come from a fact or evidence. It is simply a calculation.

 

It is a calculation based on evidence. And a rathe good one, actually.

 

It is certain that we don't know everything, but that doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING. There are many, many things that science can't explain (yet). That doesn't mean that your default god-belief is true.

 

Such is fallacious reasoning. It is called the "argument from ignorance."

 

Let's say I assert that the Raiders are the best football team in the NFL. You assert that it is the Broncos.

 

The Raiders have a losing record, so my assertion is false. You then jump ahead and say that your assertion is therefore true. This ignores that the Broncos could have a losing record also, and the other 30 teams in the league. One assertion being proven false does not make the other true. by default.

 

Now, to put it into the context of this discussion, one side asserts that life arose without magic, the other says it arose because of magic. The side that says there was no magic has mountains of evidence, both direct and indirect, has predictive value, and is falsififable. The other has none. When aspects of the phenomenon are difficult to understand for the layman, it is then claimed that the former is not true, and the latter is. See that error in thinking?

 

Let's say that tomorrow we find some evidence for magic in the fossil record (I have no idea what that would look like do you?). Definitively we no have evidence for a supernatural creator. You would still be left with having to demonstrate that your version of said supernatural creator is the one who did it. And good luck with that.

[Trimmer]

Let's say I assert that the Raiders are the best football team in the NFL. You assert that it is the Broncos.

Aw, c'mon... everyone knows the Raiders are the best team in football, so that's a bad example.

[Moai]

Aw, c'mon... everyone knows the Raiders are the best team in football, so that's a bad example.

 

I know, it was all I could think of at the time.

[Rooster_DAR]

Rooster, thanks for your input.

 

From my research in the Evolution Department in the Library, there are two views regarding life on earth. One says that there have been major disasters that killed life. The other says that evolution was gradual. So how can you sau "we know?" We don't...do we? Both are speculatory theories, aren't they?

 

How come it "makes sense" that there are less species now? Doesn't evolution produce more species as time continues?

 

But this doesn't seem to answer my question.

 

If "most" species (per Dr Gould) do not have fossils, then isn't it simply speculation that 99% of all species have died off? Yes, there are fossils of species no longer on earth, so "we can say" that at least this many have died off, but to say that 99% of all creatures/plants have died off...where does this number come from?

 

I am gathering that this number does not come from a fact or evidence. It is simply a calculation.

 

I think most scientists will agree that we don't have all the answers, I'm just quoting things I've learned along the way. If we all just keep analyzing, keep and open mind, and use scientific evidence we will figure it out eventually. So, in some regard you are correct in stating how do we know for sure? but by scientific methods we have at least found a trail of evidence that at least points to the probabilities that science now declares.

 

Perhaps our ancient ancestors did the same thing, and the easiest answer was to choose that there was a divine creation responsible for all of this. I'm getting so tired of trying to figure out all of this myself, I would rather just come to some conclusion of my own and be done with it. After all, ignorance is bliss!

[lonelybird]

After all, ignorance is bliss!

well, in this case, ignorance is not a bliss. It concerns "go to hell or heaven"

 

scientist better find some soul specimen, otherwise they won't convince me and better admit they only can know the visible world. because God had proved his existence to me

[JamesM]

No. They aren't "speculatory" at all. They are two different explanations for the facts that we see, each has its problems. As data comes in one may be right, or neither. Punctuated equillibrium seems to have the best legs at this point. None of this has anything to do with whether evolution happens or not. Didn't you gather that from your reading?

 

 

 

 

I see that my sentence structure is wrong. You are right...neither of these mean evolution is wrong, and my question was not about cataclysmic vs gradual. I didn't mean that they are speculatory...although they are both based on interpretations of evidence. Evidence is never wrong...it is always the interpretation. But my question was meant to be about the amount of species that have become extinct.

 

And yes, I gathered from my reading (as you so sarcastically asked ) did tell me a number of things. I find it fascinating to learn about evolutionary biology and what each person thinks. I am well aware that different interpretations do not invalidate a theory.

 

Since we know how things fossilize, and we can see how many fossils we have, we can estimate the total number of animals based on the amount of fossils. I am sure that there are thousands of life forms that have existed we will have no idea about, since no specimen fossilized.

 

Finally, what I am looking for...

 

Here is what I am asking. I cannot find anything that gives me a good idea where the 99% figure comes from. All I have found is that Dr Gould estimated that figure, but he said that most species that have died did not fossilize. So, can you link me to some wesbite that gives a good explanation regarding this estimate?

 

Obviously, most animals and plants have died no matter how old the earth is or how one thinks the world began, but can we say that 99% of all species have become extinct?

 

Despite what you think, this is not an attempt to discredit evolution. It is simply me learning. I have no idea of this is a good estimate or not. You can help me.

 

It is a calculation based on evidence. And a rathe good one, actually.

 

Is it your calculation? Or did you read it somewhere? If you read it, where? If you calculated it, how? Again, I am not attacking you or discrediting you, but in my readings, I have found things that do disagree with what you have told me so far (ie. "only creationists seperate macroevolution from microevolution" ....this comes to mind right now). So, forgive me if I want supporting documentation.

 

I am going to leave this post, so that maybe...just maybe, we can have a respectful and genuine discussion. I will answer your other comments in a different post.

[DutchGuy]

well, in this case, ignorance is not a bliss. It concerns "go to hell or heaven"

 

scientist better find some soul specimen, otherwise they won't convince me and better admit they only can know the visible world. because God had proved his existence to me

 

Au contraire,

Science explores well beyond the visible world.

In many ways... On a microscopic level, beyond the visible light, beyond or solar system and through fossils, geology and genetics beyond our own history.

It is the people that only see with their eyes and believe their own fantasies to explain the visible world that believe in magic, myths and gods.

 

Why was Earth flat not so long ago? Because people only trusted what they saw and what they were told all their lives. It were scientists, people that question what they see and look beyond that, who discovered the truth.

[JamesM]

BTW, Moai, it is actually good (in a way ) to see you back. It is not like you to disappear for so many days. Hope all is well.

 

I am not sure why or how you connected my simple question about species to me proving that there is a God, but you did. I apologize if you thought that this was an attack on your beliefs in evolution...it was not. It WAS an attempt to find out where you obtained your "facts."

 

 

It is certain that we don't know everything, but that doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING. There are many, many things that science can't explain (yet). That doesn't mean that your default god-belief is true.

 

Such is fallacious reasoning. It is called the "argument from ignorance."

 

Who is "we?" Are you an evolutionary biologist or something related? That is a serious question. No one has all of the answers. In fact, one evolutionary biologist was quoted as saying that only 30% is actually known concerning evolution.

 

 

I am not stupid...despite what you seem to think . I am well aware that many very intelligent people are evolutionists. I also have found that most either are agnostic (have great doubts but won't commit to either side) or believe in a God or Intelligent Being. Most are not atheists. I am not going to try to convince you or anyone that there is a God. And believe it or not, I am not trying. I also know that even if evolution is proven wrong, this does not prove anything. It simply disapproves evolution. Even if it is disproved, then those who do not believe in a God will still seek out another explanation. It is not necessary for you to keep defining fallacies to me. I am well aware of the type of facllacies. I have seen you "stoop so low" as to commit a couple yourself. I have told you of a couple, but for the most part, my goal is not to persuade or convince..it is simply to learn, so I usually refrain from pointing them out to you. Really.

 

Let's say I assert that the Raiders are the best football team in the NFL. You assert that it is the Broncos.

 

As was said...poor choices of teams. Actually, you could have picked a different sport...I like basketball. I guess that makes sense since my state football team is...the Detroit Lions, and the basketball team is the Detroit Pistons.

 

Let's say that tomorrow we find some evidence for magic in the fossil record (I have no idea what that would look like do you?). Definitively we no have evidence for a supernatural creator.

 

I am not arguing for the existence of God in the simple question concerning animal/plant extinction that I asked. Nor do I think that if you do not have an answer, then I have triumphantly disproved evolution. (How did you let yourself get off on this "diatribe?" ) And I will never try to provide evidence for a Creator or God to you. You have told me what evidences would prove a God to you, and I know I cannot provide them.

 

You would still be left with having to demonstrate that your version of said supernatural creator is the one who did it. And good luck with that.

 

I am not trying. Again, you turned my whole question into a diatribe regarding the existence of God. This was a simple question....how can we estimate that 99% of all species have died...nothing more, nothing less.

 

My goal here on this Board is to learn. It is not to convince you that I am right. I can say that since I have begin discussions on the Spirituality Board, I have learned a lot about evolutionism and creationism. I have gone to the library and either read or skimmed through books about evolution. I have read many view points about creationism and evolutionism. Much of it is a review from my college days, but it has been good mental stimulation. Currently, I am reading a good book that is basically a history about the whole debate. It is called "Where Darwin Meets the Bible" and is written by Larry Witham. It is NOT written with either a evolution or creation viewpoint. It gives small biographies on each of the many people involved on each side. I can recommend it to anyone who wants to get a good grip on how the debate has "evolved" over time.

 

I have found many books and websites that have not only given many difficulties with evolution and creation, but I have also found many counterpoints. Personally, to your amusement and disbelief I am sure, I have become more convinced that life did not just happen. How the world developed to where we are today...that is the great informational challenge that I have enjoyed researching. What viewpoint is "correct"...that is what I am seeking.

 

But my point of this post is...discussions on this Board can remain civil and respectful. When I ask a simple question, I am hoping for an answer. Yes, it may lead into a discussion, but too often...and I include myself as guilty also, these discussion turn into little sniping battles that solve or teach nothing. I thnk that if we focus we can avoid these sideshows.

 

My two cents.

[Moai]

I see that my sentence structure is wrong. You are right...neither of these mean evolution is wrong, and my question was not about cataclysmic vs gradual. I didn't mean that they are speculatory...although they are both based on interpretations of evidence. Evidence is never wrong...it is always the interpretation. But my question was meant to be about the amount of species that have become extinct.

 

And yes, I gathered from my reading (as you so sarcastically asked ) did tell me a number of things. I find it fascinating to learn about evolutionary biology and what each person thinks. I am well aware that different interpretations do not invalidate a theory.

 

Awesome!

 

Finally, what I am looking for...

 

Here is what I am asking. I cannot find anything that gives me a good idea where the 99% figure comes from. All I have found is that Dr Gould estimated that figure, but he said that most species that have died did not fossilize. So, can you link me to some wesbite that gives a good explanation regarding this estimate?

 

Sure. http://www.talkorigins.org is one of the best websites for lay-people (I am one also) regarding the surrent thinking in evolutionary biology. There are many, many good links there (check out the FAQ, and jump off of those) that get as technical as you'd like to get.

 

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/07_1.shtml has a description of how that estimate is arrived at also.

 

or see:

 

http://askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/viewtopic.php?pid=1274

 

Obviously, most animals and plants have died no matter how old the earth is or how one thinks the world began, but can we say that 99% of all species have become extinct?

 

Sure. It is an estimate, given that no person has cataloged every living thing since the dawn of time, but it is a good one.

 

Despite what you think, this is not an attempt to discredit evolution. It is simply me learning. I have no idea of this is a good estimate or not. You can help me.

 

Sorry if I am a bit zealous as to your questions, but they mirror so many I have ome across again and again from people who are Creationists and think that they have found some sort of "unanswerable" question that would shoot the current theory of evolution down or somesuch.

 

Also, I just typed "99% of all species are extinct" into a dogpile search and found the links above (amongst many others). This took me about two seconds.

 

Is it your calculation? Or did you read it somewhere? If you read it, where? If you calculated it, how? Again, I am not attacking you or discrediting you, but in my readings, I have found things that do disagree with what you have told me so far (ie. "only creationists seperate macroevolution from microevolution" ....this comes to mind right now). So, forgive me if I want supporting documentation.

 

See above. And yes, only Creationists use "macro" vs. "micro" evolution. The key is in the "versus". Biologists know that they are both parts of the same thing and treat them as such, while (some, mainly the OE variety) Creationists think that they are two distinct things and that "macro" evolution is somehow impossible. Check out the FAQ about it on talk.origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

 

I am going to leave this post, so that maybe...just maybe, we can have a respectful and genuine discussion. I will answer your other comments in a different post.

 

Ok, I will try to be a little more understanding of your questions.

[Moai]

BTW, Moai, it is actually good (in a way ) to see you back. It is not like you to disappear for so many days. Hope all is well.

 

I went to SF and saw Finntroll over the weekend, and then Turbonegro on Monday. Yes, all is well, and thank you for your concern.

 

I am not sure why or how you connected my simple question about species to me proving that there is a God, but you did. I apologize if you thought that this was an attack on your beliefs in evolution...it was not. It WAS an attempt to find out where you obtained your "facts."

 

Because Creationists and others who misunderstand biology have asked the exact questions you did before, and have also done so saying that they are just trying to learn, just as you are. But I will take you at your word.

 

Who is "we?" Are you an evolutionary biologist or something related? That is a serious question. No one has all of the answers. In fact, one evolutionary biologist was quoted as saying that only 30% is actually known concerning evolution.

 

No, "we" are human beings. You see, even though Einstein came up with E=MC^2 "we" all now know that. See? Using "we" is common in this context. Such as "it was once thought that demons caused disease, but we now know about viruses and bacteria".

 

To put it another way, I have no clue how stars form. But I am sure a guy at Cal does, so therefore "we" know. There are still people on the planet that don't believe that, by the way.

 

We only know 30% about evolution? Did you bother to look up how he came up with is "fact"? What method did he use to come up with this number? In point of fact, this is an erroneous estimate, because in order to do so he must have some idea of the totality of what can be known, and then somehow separate out what we do from what we don't. How does he know what he doesn't know?

 

It is certain that we don't know everything about evolution, and probably never will. Answers always stimulate more questions.

 

I am not stupid...despite what you seem to think .

 

I don't think that you are stupid.

 

I am well aware that many very intelligent people are evolutionists. I also have found that most either are agnostic (have great doubts but won't commit to either side) or believe in a God or Intelligent Being. Most are not atheists. I am not going to try to convince you or anyone that there is a God. And believe it or not, I am not trying. I also know that even if evolution is proven wrong, this does not prove anything. It simply disapproves evolution.

 

You see, right here: evolution cannot be disproven. It is an observable fact. Am I not saying it clearly enough? We have a theory (we meaning all of us everywhere) that explains it--a really, really good one--and we are endeavoring to understand it even more. However, our current theory could be shown to be totally wrong tomorrow, and evolution would STILL be a fact.

 

Evolutionary theory does not address god one way or the other, it is simply what we use to describe the process we see. That said, once someone says that Genesis is literally true, we can look at the facts and determine that claim to be false (the fact of evolution and how it works demonstrates this).

 

Why is, then, that theists seem only to concern themselves with evolutionary biology? Why is it that someone like Gould or Dawkins is supposed to stop what he is doing and argue against someone who holds on to a silly superstition?

 

Why don't chemists have to constantly defend their theories against the alchemists? Have you ever seen an astronomer debate an astrologist? Of course not. More on this phenomenon later.

 

Even if it is disproved, then those who do not believe in a God will still seek out another explanation. It is not necessary for you to keep defining fallacies to me. I am well aware of the type of facllacies. I have seen you "stoop so low" as to commit a couple yourself.

 

Prove it.

 

I have told you of a couple, but for the most part, my goal is not to persuade or convince..it is simply to learn, so I usually refrain from pointing them out to you. Really.

 

So, in your zeal to learn you have denied me the same courtesy? If I am committing these fallacies (which I doubt) you would rather I just keep on using them and not improve myself? Do you think you are being nice, or doing me a favor? Or do you presume that I don't want to learn either?

 

As was said...poor choices of teams. Actually, you could have picked a different sport...I like basketball. I guess that makes sense since my state football team is...the Detroit Lions, and the basketball team is the Detroit Pistons.

 

And the Lions are doing pretty well. Jesus is truly coming any second now!

 

I am not arguing for the existence of God in the simple question concerning animal/plant extinction that I asked. Nor do I think that if you do not have an answer, then I have triumphantly disproved evolution. (How did you let yourself get off on this "diatribe?" ) And I will never try to provide evidence for a Creator or God to you. You have told me what evidences would prove a God to you, and I know I cannot provide them.

 

Again, because your questions have been asked before, and are easily answered using a simple search engine. By the way, what evidence would cause you to no longer believe in god?

 

I am not trying. Again, you turned my whole question into a diatribe regarding the existence of God. This was a simple question....how can we estimate that 99% of all species have died...nothing more, nothing less.

 

Ok.

 

My goal here on this Board is to learn. It is not to convince you that I am right. I can say that since I have begin discussions on the Spirituality Board, I have learned a lot about evolutionism and creationism.

 

I am glad that you want to learn, but if that is truly your goal there are many better forums to acheive this.

 

I have gone to the library and either read or skimmed through books about evolution. I have read many view points about creationism and evolutionism. Much of it is a review from my college days, but it has been good mental stimulation. Currently, I am reading a good book that is basically a history about the whole debate. It is called "Where Darwin Meets the Bible" and is written by Larry Witham. It is NOT written with either a evolution or creation viewpoint. It gives small biographies on each of the many people involved on each side. I can recommend it to anyone who wants to get a good grip on how the debate has "evolved" over time.

 

That's great if you find the history of the debate interesting, but too often people think that because there is a history of such a debate there is actually something to debate about, which there isn't.

 

I have found many books and websites that have not only given many difficulties with evolution and creation, but I have also found many counterpoints. Personally, to your amusement and disbelief I am sure, I have become more convinced that life did not just happen. How the world developed to where we are today...that is the great informational challenge that I have enjoyed researching. What viewpoint is "correct"...that is what I am seeking.

 

I am surprised that you are lead to believe that life did not just "happen" based on your reading. Have you read Dawkins, Harris, or Dennett? Have you read Victor Stenger? Have you looked at the websites that feature examples from biology regarding design? I too started reading such things as a believer, but the more I learned I had no choice but to abandon the concept of an intelligent designer. I would be happy to give you links and a biliography if you'd like.

 

But my point of this post is...discussions on this Board can remain civil and respectful. When I ask a simple question, I am hoping for an answer. Yes, it may lead into a discussion, but too often...and I include myself as guilty also, these discussion turn into little sniping battles that solve or teach nothing. I thnk that if we focus we can avoid these sideshows.

 

My two cents.

 

My apologies for being a little too skeptical of your questions and the reasons behind them, but as I said I will take you at your word.