«

[Sebatianos]

So if I said I just met an alien from a civilization that has proof that GOD doesn't exist - would that count?

Look - a person who met an angel, but can't show that angel to anyone else isn't half as convincing as a living thing - the platopuss lays eggs like a reptile, but has fur and constant body temerature like a mamal. That's the missing link and everyone can see this animal (you just need to go somewhere, where they have it).

If that person who had an experiance with a higher being could call that angel (or whatever) and show it to others - then I would accept that as possible evidence.

[Zarkumo]

Originally posted by DeathDude@Mar 28 2005, 06:14 PM
Come on, what about the religious experiences, people have had with angels for example or the near death experiences, you think these are made up?

We don't know. That is the point. It's all subjective. Evidence for something like evolution is objective, or at least intersubjective: we can all see it.

Religion can of course be a great thing and have important and positive impacts on people's lives. After all, it has evolved and is still passing on its genes.

[Rogue]

Can something exist and have no phisical form?

If existed, where is it?

Who created it?

How old is it?

Does it age?

Etc....

What about religions which are older? They might be right, and there might be many gods, who visited earth long time ago... :bye:

[Lizard]

So if I said I just met an alien from a civilization that has proof that GOD doesn't exist - would that count?

What proof?
The problem with god is that you cant proof it exist,but also you cant proof it dont exist.

That's the missing link and everyone can see this animal (you just need to go somewhere, where they have it).

And still they are people(some of them even intelligent) that dont believe it.Or as some theologist said:evolution was,but becouse everything evolved so precisely it was guided and influenced by god .God created all species on earth.Why couldnt be evolution his tool? :angel:

[Sly]

Originally posted by Zarkumo@Mar 28 2005, 12:24 PM

Yes. Why, what's the problem?

You can interpret the "critters" (whatever they are called) as an organ of the termite. In evolutionary terms, the role the critter plays in the physiology/body chemistry of the termite can be explained just as any role of any other organ of the termite.

We are all no biologists (I guess) so you have to excuse any generalisations on our part just as we excuse yours (your account of the symbiotic relationship between the termite and the "critter" is also rather general and not very detailled. No offense. I don't know it better.* But I think it's more complicated than that.)

Symbiotic microorganism Trichonympha sphaerica to digest cellulose is an example of endosymbiosis, a symbiotic relationship with an organism that lives inside the body of the host organism and cannot live outside it.

I just stated the process by which the symbiosis takes place. I figured no one would understand the official term of the organism, not saying I do as well. I was just stating that the relationship exists.

[Zarkumo]

Originally posted by Lizard@Mar 28 2005, 06:26 PM

That's why the believe in God is not scientific (which doesn't mean it is wrong at all).

However, evidence which proves the theory of evolution wrong could turn up any time, and then the theory is discarded for the sake of a new theory. That's science.

[Yobor]

Science is self correcting, so that if we are wrong now, when we find out something new we can admit we are wrong and move on.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Lizard@Mar 28 2005, 08:26 PM
Or as some theologist said:evolution was,but becouse everything evolved so precisely it was guided and influenced by god .God created all species on earth.Why couldnt be evolution his tool? :angel:

That's one way of looking at it.
I never said that evolution disproves the existance of god... I just said that evolution is real.

As for proving or disproving the existance of GOD - I said it already in this post:

One who claims that something exists must prove it's existance - not the other way around. Otherwise I could just make up a new god, call it my dead guinea pig's reincarnation into the creature of invisible air and claim it has supernatural powers, but doesn't wish to use them. You could not prove that such a creature doesn't exist, so you'd have to belive me...

[Sly]

Originally posted by Yobor@Mar 28 2005, 01:36 PM
Science is self correcting, so that if we are wrong now, when we find out something new we can admit we are wrong and move on.

Wonder why the medical malpractice suits drive insurance costs up! LOL

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Mar 28 2005, 01:38 PM
One who claims that something exists must prove it's existance - not the other way around.

This is very true.

But as long as they not trying to prove it trough existance of life on earth.