Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[meg 1994]

Okay, this stops now. Space, your insulting of other people has become intolerable, and since you are at 10 warns, you will be forum banned for 1 week, at the end of which I expect a SINCERE apology to all the people you have blatantly insulted for being religious. Everyone has a right to their opinion, however you have gone way too far, and are being promptly punished for it. Since I feel like this is a worthwhile discussion thread I will keep it open, however, I ask that it be kept civil, or it will be closed.

[Xerxes_XIII 2 200]

Lol. I'm back again. I lost interest, but I need something to keep me occupied, so let me just give some responses here...

The earth may be six thousand years old. Nothing to disprove it. I personally don't believe that, but hey, we could all be wrong.

There is actually quite a lot to disprove that the earth is six thousand years old. We have countless pieces of evidence to support this.  (please refer to THIS link.)

THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A SEPERATION BETWEEN FAITH AND SCIENCE. God gave us brains for a reason. What many neo-Christians and other faiths believe is that "science" is a perfectly logical way to view God's creations. It has done nothing to disprove creationism, only support that God has a wicked imagination.

I find this style of argument to be somewhat... unreasonable. A deist god is a god that cannot be falsified, because no matter how much evidence is collected to the contrary, someone can always say that 'god designed it that way' or 'god is something we simply cannot understand.'

What this argument is doing is using a lack of evidence... as evidence. I am not ready to even entertain the idea of a deity until someone can offer me viable proof (not simply by pointing to the world and claiming that it could only be so beautiful because it was designed.)

Anyway, the reason science has done nothing to disprove god is because it can't. Nothing can. People used to say that god caused earthquakes and rain and lightning directly. We discovered that this is not the case, we discovered that earthquakes are the movement of the earth's plates, and that rain is caused from water that has evaporated and become clouds, and then condensed and fallen to earth (I think.). And we showed that lightning doesn't even come from the sky, it is caused by friction between our atmosphere and the ground itself, and the bolt we see is a static discharge that comes from the ground up.

Even after showing all this, it was easily countered by saying "Well that's just how god does it."

So, no. Science cannot disprove god, because god is designed in a way that he cannot be disproven.

This said, I respect your right to believe what you will, I simply do not agree with this argument.

There is no reason to say "You're an ignorant." It is rude, thoughtless, and gives the impression you have a greater knowledge of the world. Actually, you have a theory that he does not agree with. It is NOT established truth, it is a collection of ideas with supporting evidence. I would have thought someone as smart as you would understand that.

(Just noting that I'm not doing this to support space, I just found that your arguments were ones I wanted to respond to.)

STAHP. Science and religion can go hand-in-hand. it is only close-minded people from both sides of the debate that refuse to acknowledge that. Science does not "destroy" religion. If anything, many scientific discoveries can be viewed as an observation of God's creation.

Science can indeed be viewed as such, but that is not how it is meant to be viewed. Religion is a belief without evidence in something that attempts to explain the world.

Science is much the opposite, it does not try to explain our existence all at once, but rather works slowly towards furthering our understanding of it. Science has no reliance on faith, and is all about evidence.

Yes, they can be theorized to work together, but I feel that the differences between them are far too great.

 

I'll also take this chance to point out the key difference between Science and Religion, aside from the scientific reliance on evidence.

 

Religion remains the same. Christian beliefs will never change no matter how much evidence is shown to the contrary.

Science is ever changing. If we hadn't found the higgs boson particle, we would have happily scrapped 40 years of physics. Science changes as new evidence and ideas arrive, religion does not.

It's stupid? You just proved you are just as close-minded as conservative Christians in the midwest (I apologize in advance to any conservatives who may see this. I admire you for your faith, I just don't fully agree with some of you beliefs.).

My comments in pink. :3

[Ventusyr 233]

I had a big long reply but I accidently exited, so.

 

Biblical accounts make supernatural claims. William Wallace (Which I'm not even sure existed) doesn't.

 

People put their names everywhere. Not only 1 person in 0 AD was named Leviticus, or Hasus, or whatever.

 

THAT'S WHY I SAID HE WASN'T IGNORANT, IDIOT.

 

Read the bible. Your god is omnipotent and never wrong yet the bastard child of some peasent ***** who's lie to her husband got REALLY out of hand who is actually god says he is wrong? Wat.  YEP, BECAUSE CNN IS THE DEFAULT ATHEIST NETWORK. You're funny.

 

Science requires evidence, faith does not. Their completely different.

 

If I die and meet God, I will accept you're right. Atheists have evidence, religious people don't. But you don't accept the evidence.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Faith+definition

Hate it when that happens :/

True that.

Nothing was talked about in the Bible in 0 AD. Jesus was probably born in around 5 AD, but that is besides the point. The Leviticus that us famous was alive thousands of years before Christ, so he certainly wasn't with Jesus then... Though there are ruins saying they were built and funded by Pilate, who was the Roman judge who gave Jesus to the Jews to be crucified. The foundations for King Herod's castle is still here today.

Yes, if you count ignorance as admirable.

Yeah you did. You did call him ignorant. And this is a debate, not who can insult the other person more. We're having a mature debate, ja? And besides, you've displayed your ignorance on multiple occasions concerning the Jewish and Christian faiths. So please don't call me an idiot.

I have read the Bible. If you had read the Bible, you would know that in only one of the Gospels does Mary know beforehand that she was carrying the Son of God. In every one of them (save John, which focuses more on Jesus's Tour de Israel and spreading the Gospel) Joseph is told in a dream by an angel and Mary never actually tells him. Jesus never said God was wrong. Before the arrival of Jesus, sins had to be cleansed with ritual sacrifices and their faith shown by upholding certain rules. Jesus, upon dying, was the ultimate sacrifice and therefore cleansed every sin that was, is, and will be, only requiring a complete faith in him. The only "rules" he asked we keep are the Ten Commandments, which do nothing but benefit all parties involved. Please know every factor of what you are accusing before you accuse it, or you will just make yourself look like an ignorant when it comes to religions.

I chose a random news network. Most news channels report on Christians negatively nowadays, so I didn't think it would matter much which one I chose.

True dat. I am hilarious.

Touche. I see the difference.

Atheists actually have no proof. You just have faith there is no God, just as we have faith there is. You have proof for the evolution of creatures into other creatures, that the world is older than six thousand years, etc. But you have no proof that a Creator isn't responsible for starting the whole thing. The way I see it, the creation story in Genesis got the order of arrival of creatures right. Six days to God might be six eras to us, and he just sort of tweaked thing so they'd end up the way they are today.

Many religions do it, that's not the point.

No, the point is you were wrong about it being mutilation. And atheists do it too.

My comments in pink. :3

The comments were appreciated! I see now I had many holes in my argument :3

I guess I should explain why I believe in a creator. Yes, I see the world as so intricate that it would be nigh impossible by chance, so the insertion of an intelligent creator to the equation makes the chance much, much more likely that it would as intricate and complex and filled with life. However, there is no physical evidence for this. I don't see why a creator would leave physical evidence, other than through characteristics in creatures that became how they are through evolution with, perhaps, God's help. There is only faith that it was/is there, which is not evidence.

TL;DR. Thank you again for the respectful comments!

[Jistuma 1996]

You said there are no fossil intermediates yet you just posted that there are fossil intermediates in vertebrae development. Basically you contradicted yourself and used exactly the same terminology to contradict yourself with.

Sorry could you quote me? I don't know where I mention both, also, I quoted a book, so I don't know...

Atheists actually have no proof. You just have faith there is no God, just as we have faith there is. You have proof for the evolution of creatures into other creatures, that the world is older than six thousand years, etc. But you have no proof that a Creator isn't responsible for starting the whole thing. The way I see it, the creation story in Genesis got the order of arrival of creatures right. Six days to God might be six eras to us, and he just sort of tweaked thing so they'd end up the way they are today.

Atheists only mean that they don't believe in any god, people can not believe in god and not believe in evulotion. And on the other hand, people can be theists and believe in evolution, on the other hand... there can be... but I don't think many atheists would believe in creationism, unless those who believe aliens created it...

The comments were appreciated! I see now I had many holes in my argument :3

I guess I should explain why I believe in a creator. Yes, I see the world as so intricate that it would be nigh impossible by chance, so the insertion of an intelligent creator to the equation makes the chance much, much more likely that it would as intricate and complex and filled with life. However, there is no physical evidence for this. I don't see why a creator would leave physical evidence, other than through characteristics in creatures that became how they are through evolution with, perhaps, God's help. There is only faith that it was/is there, which is not evidence.

Well, you say a creator makes it so much more likely, how?

To tell you the truth, the only luck base fenomenoms were the planets distance from a star, and the fact that the planet was formed from the 'death' of another star. Now even if the odds of that are 1 in 10^10, there are probably a lot more stars in which that happened than the odds, so... ye, it is possible using probabilistic events. Really, try to research the number of stars in a galaxy, then the number of known galaxies, then the number of planets found that are similar to earth, and you will see, that even with small odds, if the universe is as big as it is, then, there is very good chance for our existance.

In this spoiler I'm responding each part of a quote one bit by bit, italic means quoted, colored is responded.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. - This would be the title, so I'm ignore it for now.

A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. - This might be true but I'll take the idea as such, but the mouse trap is a horrible example, as it can kill rats by just being a piece of wood.

Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). - Vision, blood clotting and the such are not irreducible complexity. To tell the truth there are no living being that are irreducible complex. These things could very well be evolved, and there are many animals that demonstrate less capabilities of sight and blood that helps us figure out how those things evolved.

When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. - A watch is not living nor self replicative, it is a horrible example that makes absulutly no sense. When Humans invent something that is self replicated, and that was ACTUALLY made by humans, and not by chemestry (because self replicating molacules have been made in laboratory), then you can use that example.

Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. - Comparing a watch to a living organism is like comparing a planet with a star, it's just nothing alike, even if one thing was made by the other (a star dying is necessary for planets to be formed)

Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. - Saying one person that is already dead said something without giving quotes, is placing words in their mouth, and even when quoting, it can be missinterpeted or just plain wrong.

The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created. - It is actually understood to a degree on how things evolved from one thing to another, and how mutations work.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. - DNA doesn't hold information... even the title is already wrong...

According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source. - DNA doesn't hold information.

DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. - DNA doesn't hold information.

A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating. DNA doesn't hold information.

However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA. DNA doesn't hold information, also not random chance, evolution and natural selection.

Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth. - DNA doesn't hold information, also you don't speak of any evidence of intelligence built. People hoping there is some other type of inteligence is just because... well... we exist, so they should as well.

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution. - DNA doesn't hold information, and even if it did, there are proven ways to lenghten the genetic codes, and many due to mutation.

Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. - So... no new information can be added, but it can be duplicated (creating new information), damaged (which is a wrong word considering what DNA is, but that also creates new information), subtituting (which of course creates new information) or deleting (which of course changes information)

The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. - Not true, a human being over the course of his life before he has a child has about 100 mutations on average, which then combining with the mother, gives about 200 mutations to the son, which will make the son, not a quarter of the mother and father, but a new human overall, having better or worse capabilities and appearing different than both, even if some things look similar.

Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! - There are many experiences made with make (expecially virus and bacterias) being better adapted at an inviroment, this caused by mutations.

Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. - No... not lost, change of what you call information, which I think you would be refering to the genetic DNA code. Normally they change, not delete, deleted ones, normally die, and so would not be able to reproduce and form new beings.

This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution. - If you use wrong facts you come to wrong conclusions.

4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative. - No idea what this means.

The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. - It preserves types if nothing in the enviroment changes. Example, a cow has a lot of grass to eat, and no predators, it can easily survive and reproduce, and so, nothing needs changing in them and they survive for many years almost unchanged.

Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. - No idea if Darwin said that, but yes, if the enviroment changes, natural selection will mean that the strongests and fittest survive, this way the sons will be stronger and fitter as well.

However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones. - Didn't you give the example of bacteria gaining anti-biotic defences just a little bit back? Of course it has been proven that living beings can change and gain new properties.

For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. - The changes in enviroment are always constant, so the changes are constant as well.

In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong. - Yes? So? He lived over 100 years ago, of course he was wrong on some things... that's how science works.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. - I can easily tell you why... because it's impossible to get them all (in the case of fossils). In the case of living beings, it already has been proven, you guys call it minor changes and don't accept it as evolution, even thought it is.

If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. - Wrong, there are a lot of fossils that derive into two diferent being afterwards.

The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. - Yes there are...

The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been. - Yes they have, and they have found and made the correct statements many times like "Between these two fossils there should be a being in between with these characteristics", and then the fossil was found. Also, fossilisation is a very hard thing to happen, and the correct things must be there for it to happen, so of course there are no fossils of everything.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. - It's not scientists who make the pictures, normally is the sientists saying things like "That is ALL WRONG!"

The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. - They are, that is why they aren't made or taken into acount by scientists.

These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates. - Examples would be nice, and OH, don't forget to research the ones that weren't completly thrown into the garbage by scientists.

Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human. The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. - Assumptions of the artist. See what's wrong there? Artist... not scientist.

Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones. The “missing links” are still missing. - Well... ever saw the tv show 'Bones'? of course it's not 100% true, but there are ways to figure out how an animal would look only from their skeleton. Still.. artists, not scientists

7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results. - Let's see the reasons for such a grand statement.

Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. - Well, constant as in each new rock, made from the exact same elements in diferent times, will lose the isotopes the same way at about the same rate (this rate normally is fast in the begining, then slows down.)

However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy. - Well damn... if only there were like 20 other ways to test the age of something that didn't involve that. Wait there are... (20 is a random number)

In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption. - That's for carbon dating, which can't be used in marine enviroments because of exacly what you said, but it works very well for plants.

In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline. - Yes, is scientists saying, if we do it this way it's wrong, because it will give wrong numbers. Let's do it another way to get the correct numbers.

What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock! - Each method can only be used in certain conditions. For example, carbon dating needs carbon. If the thing being tested has no carbon, carbon dating can't be used.

In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline. - Well no... there have actually been many times when scientists have been proven wrong by other scientists because they made a wrong testing that couldn't be used in that experiment.

This is a classic case of circular thinking! Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock. This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same. - Are you assuming that diferent Isotopes have the same rate? Because that is just wrong. Diferent Isotopes have diferent constant values in the equation for the calculation of age.

Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old. If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age? - You'll have to give examples of this, I can't comment without the examples. So many things could be the result of it...

8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution. - I don't get it, of course it's evidence, it's one of the many types of evidences.

Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. - Not known function =/= useless. What they probably mean is that it got better.

In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. - Probably the not known turned to known. It is already stated that you don't know the diference between not known, and useless, maybe you made the same mistake here.

Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance. It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. - Normally when something isn't needed it disapears, thought it might take a while. It's like having 5 toes, or 5 fingers, we only need 3, but having 5 helps us with other things. But organs then, I don't know any useless organ that we might have, but I do know there are some we can live without.

Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation. No such examples exist. - They don't need to, since even in humans it is observable that some organs work better on some, and that the children have better chances of the same organ being better as well. This way, the prove that an organ can evolve

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. - What? this is not true, nor does the bigining of life have anything to do with evolution.

When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.”  - Alright I'll take this. This is saying, something can not come from nothing.

Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. - Existing life has to come from life. Other words to put it, a dog... comes from a dog. I think... I might be wrong, but either way, abiogenisis is the statement that life can come from non living things. Well, Louis Pasteur lived over 100 years ago, there have been many, many discoveries since then.

The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. - Spontaneous generation is not something non living becoming living. It's something non living becoming living spontaneously. Abiogenisies states that is was fast, as in, it took over 10 000 years but not as long as 1 000 000.

Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. - Na, you're just wrong.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. - You do know there are things called impossibilities. A coin will not turn into a living being, because a living being is not made of the same material as a coin. But maybe it can help, it can turn into a part of the living being.

Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive. - That is where you are wrong. Thing of it this way, gunpowder will never explode, unless a energy source is given, so yes, a coin might help the creation of a new living being, such as Oxigent might help an explosion happen, and water can turn to Hidrogene and Oxigen.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. - Science can use data to predict, that is it's use. Even the title is wrong again.

There are two types of science. Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena. Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable. Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word. - This is a hard one to explain why nothing of this is true. Science makes one conclusion, from that conclusion he makes another and then so on. He can make conclusions about things that have happened, based on other conclusions it made before. So, by knowing that Oxigen is made of two oxigen molocules, and that for the molocules to appear they need to be fused, and that the only way for fusion method in the universe which is natural is the fusion in starts, it was concluded, with many other experimentation, that the earth is the result of a dead star. Science works wonders doesn't it?

[Ventusyr 233]

Atheists only mean that they don't believe in any god, people can not believe in god and not believe in evulotion. And on the other hand, people can be theists and believe in evolution, on the other hand... there can be... but I don't think many atheists would believe in creationism, unless those who believe aliens created it...Well, you say a creator makes it so much more likely, how?To tell you the truth, the only luck base fenomenoms were the planets distance from a star, and the fact that the planet was formed from the 'death' of another star. Now even if the odds of that are 1 in 10^10, there are probably a lot more stars in which that happened than the odds, so... ye, it is possible using probabilistic events. Really, try to research the number of stars in a galaxy, then the number of known galaxies, then the number of planets found that are similar to earth, and you will see, that even with small odds, if the universe is as big as it is, then, there is very good chance for our existance.

I was saying atheists don't have proof for the nonexistence of a creator, just as religious people don't have proof that there is one.

I said that a creator actually wanting to make life on a certain planet would improve the odds greatly. I never said that it would be impossible without it. It would be a jump from, say, a 1% chance planet A has life to a 100% chance planet A has life. Without a creator, basic life is possible, but it is just a much higher probability a planet developes life if a creator is involved.

[Xerxes_XIII 2 200]

I was saying atheists don't have proof for the nonexistence of a creator, just as religious people don't have proof that there is one.

I said that a creator actually wanting to make life on a certain planet would improve the odds greatly. I never said that it would be impossible without it. It would be a jump from, say, a 1% chance planet A has life to a 100% chance planet A has life. Without a creator, basic life is possible, but it is just a much higher probability a planet developes life if a creator is involved.

While this logic does make sense, allow me to give you something to consider.

The universe is massive, possibly even infinite.

 

No matter how small the chance, life would arise somewhere, and wherever that life arose, this question would be raised, the inhabitants (once they reached the point of consciousness at our level) would raise these same questions, and religion would probably arise there as well as a way to explain all the stuff they don't know.

 

Yes, the probability of life is very small, and is much larger if there is a creator involved... But it would happen somewhere, so why not here?

[Ventusyr 233]

While this logic does make sense, allow me to give you something to consider.

The universe is massive, possibly even infinite.

 

No matter how small the chance, life would arise somewhere, and wherever that life arose, this question would be raised, the inhabitants (once they reached the point of consciousness at our level) would raise these same questions, and religion would probably arise there as well as a way to explain all the stuff they don't know.

 

Yes, the probability of life is very small, and is much larger if there is a creator involved... But it would happen somewhere, so why not here?

Life would not necessarily arise. Just because I flip a coin an infinite amount of times does not mean I will get tails at some point. It only means there is a chance it will. Probability never increases as values grow.

The other thing I have issues with is why life arises. I can understand molecules forming, but molecules combing with other molecules and creating cellular life? What would be the point? I'm not using this as evidence for a creator - I do believe It was needed for things to get started though - but I am curious to see a... "Scientific"? Would that be the right word? A scientific view of the beginning arrival of life.

[Wavejammers 328]

I was saying atheists don't have proof for the nonexistence of a creator, just as religious people don't have proof that there is one.

I said that a creator actually wanting to make life on a certain planet would improve the odds greatly. I never said that it would be impossible without it. It would be a jump from, say, a 1% chance planet A has life to a 100% chance planet A has life. Without a creator, basic life is possible, but it is just a much higher probability a planet developes life if a creator is involved.

 

Can we see god?

No

Can we hear god?

No

Can we film god?

No

Can we smell god?

No

Can we find out how a person alone could create the entire universe?

No.

Can we find out how he magically flodded the entire earth by creating H2O atoms out of nowhere?

No.

 

If you haven't seen it yet, GOD is created to be UNDISPROVEABLE. Can you convince others your imaginary friend exist?

 

Now, let me ask you a question: How did North and East Europe come to believe in god? And also the US for that reason.

 

And, we've found life on mars, LIFE! So god didn't chose only the earth, as written in the bible, so the bible lied to you (Again) and you still trust it.

[Ventusyr 233]

Can we see god?

No

Can we hear god?

No

Can we film god?

No

Can we smell god?

No

Can we find out how a person alone could create the entire universe?

No.

Can we find out how he magically flodded the entire earth by creating H2O atoms out of nowhere?

No.

 

If you haven't seen it yet, GOD is created to be UNDISPROVEABLE. Can you convince others your imaginary friend exist?

 

Now, let me ask you a question: How did North and East Europe come to believe in god? And also the US for that reason.

 

And, we've found life on mars, LIFE! So god didn't chose only the earth, as written in the bible, so the bible lied to you (Again) and you still trust it.

I agree with all of your denials to the observations of God. Except for the last one.

During Earth's creation, a large amount of water was probably trapped underneath the forming plates of the Earth. Eventually, after life had established itself, and there was people, etc, etc, an earthquake somewhere that moved the plates completely apart would allow the pressurized water to escape. The water flies up, freezes once it exits the atmosphere, melts into water droplets upon reentry, the water droplets condense into clouds... And, of course, a veritable ocean being put into clouds will result in a lot of rain. So, for maybe around a month, it would just be constant rain. There is a scientific explanation for it. Not too "magical."

God is undisprovable. He isn't provable either. The only way to convince people is by showing them the daily miracles that happen every day, through faith healing, prayer, etc. If we ask Him, and have faith whatever we ask will happen, and God wants it to happen as well... It will happen.

Europe originally became Christian when the Roman Emperor Constantine received a vision of a the Chi-Roh(the first two letters in Christ's name) and was told "Through this sign, you shall conquer." He immediately applied the symbol to the shields and standards of the Roman army as they approached the Battle of Milvian Bridge. They emerged victorious. Constantine then decided to establish Christianity as the state religion, when prior to this the religion had been persecuted heavily. The entirety of the Roman Empire, which was most of Europe, was thus converted, and missionaries, and later armies, reached out to other European countries. Hundreds of years later, Puritans, persecuted in England, fled to America and established a Puritan colony. Other Christians came and established colonies in the new land... And thus, America had Christians.

We found evidence that there WAS life on Mars, but only very basic.

Have you read the Bible? God never said Earth was the only planet of life. He says that his creation was good, and then had his day of rest. It is selfish to believe He wouldn't establish life on other worlds. The book of Genesis only talks about us, because he was trying to share our creation story with us.

[Wavejammers 328]

I agree with all of your denials to the observations of God. Except for the last one.

During Earth's creation, a large amount of water was probably trapped underneath the forming plates of the Earth. Eventually, after life had established itself, and there was people, etc, etc, an earthquake somewhere that moved the plates completely apart would allow the pressurized water to escape. The water flies up, freezes once it exits the atmosphere, melts into water droplets upon reentry, the water droplets condense into clouds... And, of course, a veritable ocean being put into clouds will result in a lot of rain. So, for maybe around a month, it would just be constant rain. There is a scientific explanation for it. Not too "magical."

God is undisprovable. He isn't provable either. The only way to convince people is by showing them the daily miracles that happen every day, through faith healing, prayer, etc. If we ask Him, and have faith whatever we ask will happen, and God wants it to happen as well... It will happen.

Europe originally became Christian when the Roman Emperor Constantine received a vision of a the Chi-Roh(the first two letters in Christ's name) and was told "Through this sign, you shall conquer." He immediately applied the symbol to the shields and standards of the Roman army as they approached the Battle of Milvian Bridge. They emerged victorious. Constantine then decided to establish Christianity as the state religion, when prior to this the religion had been persecuted heavily. The entirety of the Roman Empire, which was most of Europe, was thus converted, and missionaries, and later armies, reached out to other European countries. Hundreds of years later, Puritans, persecuted in England, fled to America and established a Puritan colony. Other Christians came and established colonies in the new land... And thus, America had Christians.

We found evidence that there WAS life on Mars, but only very basic.

Have you read the Bible? God never said Earth was the only planet of life. He says that his creation was good, and then had his day of rest. It is selfish to believe He wouldn't establish life on other worlds. The book of Genesis only talks about us, because he was trying to share our creation story with us.

 

1. You just explained an Ice Age, and there've been thousands of Ice Ages before The Flood, that would have done that job before god.

2. Could you define "A miracel" And give an example of one.

3. I expected a stupid answer, but I have to say this; Good you tell the truth.

4. The bible never mentions other planets, not even in the book of Genesis, only other stars. And since life cannot exist on a star... And there STILL is life on Mars, bacteria is life too ya know.

[Ventusyr 233]

1. You just explained an Ice Age, and there've been thousands of Ice Ages before The Flood, that would have done that job before god.

2. Could you define "A miracel" And give an example of one.

3. I expected a stupid answer, but I have to say this; Good you tell the truth.

4. The bible never mentions other planets, not even in the book of Genesis, only other stars. And since life cannot exist on a star... And there STILL is life on Mars, bacteria is life too ya know.

1. Before God, there was nothing. I did not explain an Ice Age, I explained a downpour of water. The process is much, much faster than an Ice Age, where it gradually builds up more liquid after a warm period.

2.

Miracle

1

: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2

: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

3

Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Michael Oher, offensive linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens. Thrown into the foster care system unsuccessfully after being taken from his crack-addicted mother and basically became homeless. The Touhys, while driving by, saw him shivering on the side of the road. They took him in, and, when Oher was 17, became his legal guardians. He rose from nothing and is now making around 13.8 million a year. He's also a Christian.

3. Thank you. I know my history. I also know that the adoption of Christianity as the state religion ended the spread of genuine Christianity, and brought rise to the corruption the Church suffered for hundreds of years.

4. They found the ingredients for life, and they believe there might be microbes living under the McLaughlin Crater. They don't know if there are. If they have, I'm very excited.

That's what I was talking about. The Bible never mentions other planets, because there wouldn't be much of a point to tell us the creation story of some other race tens/hundreds/thousands of light years away. He never said, "And Earth is my perfect creation, therefore no other world shall develope! Haha!" He said he made the heavens, but he also didn't specify what he put in there. If he just explained everything to us, it would make space exploration rather unnecessary.

Bacteria is certainly life. I never said it wasn't. Wherever you got the article where they say they have definitely found microbial life on Mars, I'd love to see it, because every article I have seen has been filled with mights, shoulds, and coulds.

[Jistuma 1996]

The other thing I have issues with is why life arises. I can understand molecules forming, but molecules combing with other molecules and creating cellular life? What would be the point? I'm not using this as evidence for a creator - I do believe It was needed for things to get started though - but I am curious to see a... "Scientific"? Would that be the right word? A scientific view of the beginning arrival of life.

The begining of life is one of the hardest things we can ever try to explain, and there are a few hipoteses that seem plausible.

One of the more probable ones is that self replicating molecules originated from some weird spots in the ocean where active volcanic events happened.

Then the rest is very complicated, from the creation of DNA from other things, photosinteses, and so many other things... It needs a book to explain.

As for the reason why, it just happens, it's natural selection and chemestry at it's purest form.

[Wavejammers 328]

1. Before God, there was nothing. I did not explain an Ice Age, I explained a downpour of water. The process is much, much faster than an Ice Age, where it gradually builds up more liquid after a warm period.

2.

Michael Oher, offensive linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens. Thrown into the foster care system unsuccessfully after being taken from his crack-addicted mother and basically became homeless. The Touhys, while driving by, saw him shivering on the side of the road. They took him in, and, when Oher was 17, became his legal guardians. He rose from nothing and is now making around 13.8 million a year. He's also a Christian.

3. Thank you. I know my history. I also know that the adoption of Christianity as the state religion ended the spread of genuine Christianity, and brought rise to the corruption the Church suffered for hundreds of years.

4. They found the ingredients for life, and they believe there might be microbes living under the McLaughlin Crater. They don't know if there are. If they have, I'm very excited.

That's what I was talking about. The Bible never mentions other planets, because there wouldn't be much of a point to tell us the creation story of some other race tens/hundreds/thousands of light years away. He never said, "And Earth is my perfect creation, therefore no other world shall develope! Haha!" He said he made the heavens, but he also didn't specify what he put in there. If he just explained everything to us, it would make space exploration rather unnecessary.

Bacteria is certainly life. I never said it wasn't. Wherever you got the article where they say they have definitely found microbial life on Mars, I'd love to see it, because every article I have seen has been filled with mights, shoulds, and coulds.

1. Oh, I see, you're young earth creationist.

2. Do you believe god possed those people, who picked him up, and forced them to pick Oher up and give him a job?

[Ventusyr 233]

The begining of life is one of the hardest things we can ever try to explain, and there are a few hipoteses that seem plausible.One of the more probable ones is that self replicating molecules originated from some weird spots in the ocean where active volcanic events happened.Then the rest is very complicated, from the creation of DNA from other things, photosinteses, and so many other things... It needs a book to explain.As for the reason why, it just happens, it's natural selection and chemestry at it's purest form.

I hate to nag on words, but "it just happens" isn't the best of an explanation... The rest of it makes some sense, though. I remember reading some stuff about it in a textbook, but it never said why, really. Thank you!

1. Oh, I see, you're young earth creationist.

2. Do you believe god possed those people, who picked him up, and forced them to pick Oher up and give him a job?

1. Where did you get that idea? There is tons of evidence to support the Earth being 4.2 billion years old. But the Bible specifically said that God was the first thing in the universe, so I am inclined to believe that before God, there was nothing. There wasn't a "before God" either, because... This is where the prospect of God gets complicated and a lot of debates, headaches, and insanity. He has always existed. He is ageless, timeless, and not bound by our puny concept of reality. He is, however, bound by the basic laws of physics.

2. Possessed? No. God does not usually possess people, because that would be taking away their free will. Moreso sent a message to them, nudging them in the right direction.

[Xerxes_XIII 2 200]

Life would not necessarily arise. Just because I flip a coin an infinite amount of times does not mean I will get tails at some point. It only means there is a chance it will. Probability never increases as values grow.

The other thing I have issues with is why life arises. I can understand molecules forming, but molecules combing with other molecules and creating cellular life? What would be the point? I'm not using this as evidence for a creator - I do believe It was needed for things to get started though - but I am curious to see a... "Scientific"? Would that be the right word? A scientific view of the beginning arrival of life.

Admittedly, I'm no expert on statistics or anything, and I really can't refute this... But from what I gather from this: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/14384/probability-increases-as-sample-size-increases

Is that it does in fact increase the chance of it happening. The more chances you give for something to happen the more likely it is to do so. At least, thats what I think... Again, I have really no idea.

 

Regarding your second argument, allow me to point one thing out.

Yes, it is hard to imagine that life can arise from nothing... But then tell me, how is a creator made? With the idea of a creator, you must then explain how the creator came to be, and is an omnipotent, all-powerful being not much, much harder to explain than a single-celled organism?

I'm not totally sure what you mean when you ask what the point of molecules creating cellular life is, or what you mean by saying you wonder 'why life arises'. If you mean the obvious by those statements, then it is very much like asking what the purpose of a mountain is, what the meaning of a mountain is. There is no meaning, it is simply a byproduct of an event- that event being the collision of the earth's plates.