Evolution from single cell bacteria to multi celled organisms and beyond is well documented throughout the fossil record. I can't help it if you choose to ignore it and believe otherwise.

I never said that anyone that believes in God is lacking in intelligence. All I said was that it sounds like you can't cope with a universe with no purpose (and you said as much yourself a couple times). You and I both know that fear is a primary recruitment tool to get people to join religion so there's no use in trying to deny it. To even try is to deny the very existence of every person who ever prattled on and on on about the fires of hell and how non-believers (or believers in a different religion) are doomed to eternal torture, so they'd better get saved while they can.

I don't know about those other philosophers and scientists, but I know for a fact that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. Someone lied to you about that. This is because the idea of having a genius like Einstein on their side makes them feel justified in having their beliefs. Well guess what? Einstein refused to accept Quantum Mechanics because he didn't like the idea that there was an inherent randomness at the quantum level. Einstein, like all people, was capable of being wrong. So even if he had been a believer in a personal god, that too is meaningless.

Science doesn't take things on faith in the same way religious people take things on faith, so trying to equate these two is absurd. And I didn't say I wouldn't look at your link, I just said that I haven't yet. And there's absolutely a lot of Creationist garbage that people like to dress up as "science", but the instant a group of actual scientists asks for them to release their data and methods to try to review it and repeat their experiments, the Creationists clam up knowing full well that it won't withstand the peer review process. You ever wonder why you don't see Creationist articles published in Nature or Science? Because they don't withstand any scrutiny.

The 757 analogy is not baffling to me. Again you're misreading what I'm saying. The problem with it is that it's misapplied statistics and I've already gone into depth about why it's flawed and why astronomical odds against something that we know to have happened don't matter anyway. Think of it this way. Every time you shuffle a deck of cards, the probability of getting that exact order of cards is 1 in 8E67. But the fact that the odds are astronomically against that exact order is meaningless, because it happened. Or maybe God controlled the cards? Yeah, that must have been it.

String theory does provide answers to some questions that otherwise have gone unanswered so it does add something more than just increased complexity, but like you said other than one or two experiments that I've heard of (just to verify that string theory agreed with other theories' predictions, and wasn't breaking any new ground), its tenets are so far completely untestable.

I'll get back to your other comments later, Ive been drinking too much

But your Einstein Comments that he did not believe in "A personal God", and that someone lied to me on this, is somewhat flawed. I present for your concideration the following:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

p.s. A Belief in God vs "a personal God" seems to me to be a bit of a cop out, don't you think?

I think there's an immense distinction versus a personal God and belief in a being that set all of the laws of the universe into motion (noting that the words "belief in God" usually are referring to the Judeo-Christian god, especially since we're surrounded by Christians in this country). "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." is the most striking quote from that article. I think if he had been alive today and had the chance to consider some of the modern hypotheses of how these "discernible laws and connections" came to be, then he might have been able to reject the deist ideology. The Gaps (referring to the "God of the Gaps") have become smaller since Einstein's time, when no explanations outside of a god existed.

Then again, if he had been alive today he would have found YouTube and that probably would have absolutely killed his productivity.

No, they're not even close to the same thing. And aren't you a Christian? If the words of Einstein mean so much to you then maybe you should take this quote in particular to heart, "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

Heh, I think you are right about YouTube

I mentioned the Cop out thought in response to your comment "I know for a fact the Einstien did not believe in a personal God, someone lied to you about that". I was not implying any particular belief, and so I interpret a belief in a being that set the laws of the universe in motion as accepting the idea of God (albiet not specific to any individual group). But then Again, I also didn't go with Bill Clinton's different opionin on what having sex meant either Additionally I did not singularly grap Einstien out of thin air to bolster my position, he just happened to be in the group of famous Scientist who were not Atheists. But also like you, Even if he were (and he absolutly resented that Atheists tried to portray him as such), it also would not change my opinion any more than Steven Hawkins' (another brilliant mind) unbelief does.

I also did not choose to ignore documented evidence such as you mention with Single Cell bacteria evolving to multi celled organism.... I never stated or implied this. I specifily said the evolution of the Primordial ozze to a complex form "Such as the single Cell" is what was impossible for me to believe. This is similar the the facts that no fossil records of evolution of complex organs have been found. The Scientific conclusion (and I can't say this enough, it is the correct conclusion for Science) is that even though there is no fossil record, the complex organs exist and therefore we must assume they evolved. It is this Ockham's razor princible as used by Richard Dawkins in his "God Delusion" to offer proof that God does not exist that I don't roll with. I am going to paraphrase this so forgive me if I don't get it right. (already drinking :P)

"If something as complex as the universe was created, than the Creator must be more complex. The idea of even greater complexity beyond the complexity we can't fully understand already is overly complicating and unprovable so therefore it is concidered as not possible. This only leaves one answer - God does not exist".

Again that is a crappy version of What Dawkins said, but it is pretty representative of the idea. Please feel free to drop his actual comment if you can easily find it.

LOL, Nihla, come on dude this is like Quote mining in the worst degree. You go into the link, grap one sentence that supports what you want to conclude and ignore the othe 2 pages of the link?

But here let me Quote mine something for you from Darwin Himself

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Yup, That is a Charles Darwin Quote. Oh, but wait, you say this is not the Full version...... Oh yeah, that's right there is more to it. Please let me complete this

".....Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

You see how picking and choosing what you want can really alter the outcome?

This post was edited by FullArcFG on Jul 5 2011 06:59pm

It really isn't quote mining though, because it's representative of his views in regards to the Christian God. He simply did not believe in such a God, and the reason I used his own words is because you had already used them. The article is about him believing in some sort of deist conception of God, which is completely at odds with Christianity and the institution of religion that you seem to believe in.

Where was it said that he believed in a Christian God? He Certainly did early on, but I never Stated any Such position. I listed him as one of many Scientists who Believed in God, be it Spinosa's God or any other was never stipulated. And you did "Quote mine" from the perspective that snippit was an early view of his that changed as he grew older (and wiser?) and part of the same article. To single that out and excluded the rest is not much different than my Snipping of Darwins' quote.

And since you don't seem to know Jack about the institution of Religion, and only want to try and use it for some lame attempt at insults, why not just leave that out of your argument. Unless of course you are going to claim mastery of that subject as well....... As a matter of Fact go back in this thread and point out to me where I brought my "Personal Religious Doctrine" to this discussion. I made a concerted effort NOT to bring that up to avoid this kind of deterioration of discussion. My Only points presented is that I am not an Atheist, I believe in God. I have no problem with Stating I am a Christian, but that is not germane. Lets try to stay on track of the original discussion somewhat.

What have I said that demonstrates I know "jack about the institution of religion"? I think I demonstrated quite aptly that I know enough about it to show you that his view is at odds with your particular conception of God and institution of religion. He was not a follower of an organized religion or the institution of religion like you are; he very clearly stated this.

What's the point in sharing that he believed in a God if he still didn't believe in the same God you did? Who cares? Everything from his conception of who created the universe, to why it was created is different. He still believed in macro-evolution, which you're skeptical of, and this seems to be the entire point of this thread. Also, since you're the one attempting to insult me with your claim that I know "jack about the institution of religion" I'd like you to qualify this with some sort of claim instead of making up random and baseless nonsense.