Proof of God

[StrongInChrist]

Are you talking about Albert Einstein??? If you are go and read my previous posts he was not a theist like you or I.

He believed in a non personal God who created the universe and let things as they were not to interfere with human affairs.

I was just showing that he believed in a creator of some sort just to show that it isnt so impractical.

[StrongInChrist]

Science takes time. We'll figure it out eventually.

Compared to the human race, modern science is still really in its infancy. Bacteria were only discovered a few hundred years ago. I think science has been working at a marvelously fast pace.

We have cures for a multitude of diseases (which, may I remind you, praying didn't do jack sh-t for.), prosthetic limbs, vaccines. Life expectancies have almost doubled.

DNA isn't required. Some genetic material is, but RNA was likely the first genetic material.

And FYI: the structure of amino acids allows them to polymerize under certain conditions, no DNA needed. Microspheres form their own simple enzymes and a semi-permeable membrane, just like modern eukaryotic cells, all without DNA.

Thanks for that little reminder but I personally know people who were healed through prayer from deadly diseases even aids. And my uncle has his doctors form written out that he no longer has aids, so watch your mouth when you curse my God because I dont insult your posts.

[StrongInChrist]

I gotta go to bed now. Thanx for all the thoughts I enjoy learning the views of life from all people.....

I feel like this is my thread or something lol Where is the creator of this thread anyways lol

[Persecuted]

That was a lovely piece of fiction. I mean, because you don't have any facts to substantiate "Him".

Anyway, the first unicellular organism likely arose from amino acids, which under the conditions of primitive earth, form from N, H, C, and O, and a bit of electricity.

It's possible to make very primitive protein microspheres with just a bit of heat (nothing outside the range of what you would encounter on earth) by just heating these amino acids. These microspheres metabolize (they have enzymes), grow, and even reproduce.

That's where the first unicellular organism came from.

The first piece of matter? I'd rather say "I don't know" than "it was 'Him'" without any proof.

You talk about origin of life as if it's a simple problem that scientists have a good idea about what happened. The fact is the more we learn the further and further it seems we are getting from a naturalistic answer to this problem.

Here's what a very famous and competent agnostic astrobiologist Paul Davies wrote on the origin of life:

"When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origins . . . Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding . . . This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.4

Davies goes on to explain why such a mismatch persists between public perception and reality on the origin-of-life question:

Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding. . .5"


You go and speak about it as if you know the answer already and actually you have got most of it all wrong.

The pre-biotic soup which scientists used to think life came from has now been dismissed even by atheist scientists.

When you talk about amino acids being produced it sounds like you are referring to the Miller/Urey experiment which has also been dismissed by modern scientists as being a dead end for origin of life answer.

What is this you talk of microspheres?? Please refer me to the resource you got this information from so i can investigate it further.

[Rough-Draft]

Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.
Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.


The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"9

houstonwehaveamoron

[NuggzTheNinja]

You talk about origin of life as if it's a simple problem that scientists have a good idea about what happened. The fact is the more we learn the further and further it seems we are getting from a naturalistic answer to this problem.

Here's what a very famous and competent agnostic astrobiologist Paul Davies wrote on the origin of life:

"When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origins . . . Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding . . . This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.4

Davies goes on to explain why such a mismatch persists between public perception and reality on the origin-of-life question:

Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding. . .5"


You go and speak about it as if you know the answer already and actually you have got most of it all wrong.

The pre-biotic soup which scientists used to think life came from has now been dismissed even by atheist scientists.

When you talk about amino acids being produced it sounds like you are referring to the Miller/Urey experiment which has also been dismissed by modern scientists as being a dead end for origin of life answer.

What is this you talk of microspheres?? Please refer me to the resource you got this information from so i can investigate it further.

Fox did the research on the microspheres.

Could you post a source for your "credible scientists" debunking these claims?

I wouldn't say Davies is agnostic...have you read any of his *other* books?


That entire Davies article is simply opinion. He has nothing of substance in there. He simply says that to him, it appears as if the universe was designed. He has a bunch of degrees, but degrees don't make you right. Until he presents valid evidence, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to throw him in the "who cares" pile.

[Fifth Column]

Educate me then, don't get hostile about it.

This is coming from the same guy who couldn't even put forth the effort to read JBDW's post (which, by the way, I take my hat off to). Look, it's not his job to educate you. If don't want people to get hostile, educate YOURSELF before spouting off rubbish.

That goes for all you "if there's no God then where did we come from, LOL" idiots.

[JBDW]

This is coming from the same guy who couldn't even put forth the effort to read JBDW's post (which, by the way, I take my hat off to). Look, it's not his job to educate you. If don't want people to get hostile, educate YOURSELF before spouting off rubbish.

That goes for all you "duh, if there's no God then how d'ya explain dis here universe" idiots.

Thanks, but that argument was actually a saved one on my computer which I took off a website. I can't take credit.

[StrongInChrist]

This is coming from the same guy who couldn't even put forth the effort to read JBDW's post (which, by the way, I take my hat off to). Look, it's not his job to educate you. If don't want people to get hostile, educate YOURSELF before spouting off rubbish.

That goes for all you "if there's no God then where did we come from, LOL" idiots.

My purpose as a Christian is to show Gods love to people and offer them eternal life which is Gods gift to them. That is my reason to teach my beliefs. What is your reason. It seems to me you just want to criticize people who believe in God and offer no true help to anyone. If you believe we all have no meaning in life then just drop the whole subject and go on with your life. Nobody will ever profit from you calling them an idiot.

[Fifth Column]

My purpose as a Christian is to show Gods love to people and offer them eternal life which is Gods gift to them. That is my reason to teach my beliefs. What is your reason. It seems to me you just want to criticize people who believe in God and offer no true help to anyone. If you believe we all have no meaning in life then just drop the whole subject and go on with your life. Nobody will ever profit from you calling them an idiot.

My reason for being here? Um, just happened to find this thread (and the idiocy within) interesting, and thought I'd chime in I guess. Same "reason" I have for every thread I post in. Unlike you, I don't need an agenda to put forth my two cents. I just do it because I feel like it. You're spreading the word of the bible, and I'm spreading the word of logic and common sense. Similar concept, really.

[Scaglietti]

Well this poses another question... Does God (if he exists) exist in a realm outside of time or is he the realm outside of time??

Also i don't think this is avoiding the question i would argue this is making the statement that God came from nowhere he came from nothing he always was and always is. This also takes me back to another profound statement in the Bible. The very name of God "YAHWEH" it means "I AM THAT I AM". This is a profound statement from the argument of an eternal uncaused cause..

Also you ask where? When you ask the question of where, it is seeming that you put physical restraints on a metaphysical existence. This cannot be done, i couldn't answer and say he came from japan or indeed any place in the universe because in the reality of the immaterial there is no "where". The fact is we all have this brute fact to deal with atheists and theists.

We could ask you where did the universe come from? You will need to appeal to metaphysical philosophies and theories that in this case i think the eternal uncaused cause of God explains much more adequately in regards to everything not just the matter of "where did it come from?."


BTW scagligetti i'm calling you out! You have repeatedly called theists ignorant on this thread within the presentation of very weak arguments.

Go back through this thread read my arguments especially the one i quoted yourself in and please refute them.

I am calling you ignorant now, because you really are ignorant of my posts.

i aint reading everything as i look so down upon this argument its not funny, like i cant even comprehend how some ppl are so gullible to believe such rubbish.. but unless you got some ground breaking evidence of this god you believe in, theres no reason to continue the debate.

[muse88]

these debates are quite pointless, one side argues with science the other argues with faith, both collide and clash

[MonsterG8r]

its impossible to prove existence of something that doesnt exist.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...cs/design.html


The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The banana-the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy
To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.





TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious




Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (For full quote see the footnote at the end of the page.)

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."





Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe;a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."





TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

___ YES ___ NO

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________




Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they randomly fell into 10 columns and 5 rows? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone five rows of ten.






TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.



Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."



TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO




"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to proved that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

[Scaglietti]

these debates are quite pointless, one side argues with science the other argues with faith, both collide and clash

nice way to summarise it, and lets look at them... comparing the two is laughable, one is factual and the other is just... belief?

[Stinker]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...cs/design.html


The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The banana-the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy
To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.





TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious




Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (For full quote see the footnote at the end of the page.)

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."





Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe;a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."





TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

___ YES ___ NO

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________




Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they randomly fell into 10 columns and 5 rows? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone five rows of ten.






TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.



Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."



TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO




"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to proved that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

[fkn_give_me_abs]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...cs/design.html


The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The banana-the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy
To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.





TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious




Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (For full quote see the footnote at the end of the page.)

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."





Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe;a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."





TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

___ YES ___ NO

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

this argument was covered (and owned) in detail on one of the earlier pages by JBDW i think.

but anyway, i will end it the fast way.

you say everything needs a creator, but who/what created GOD then?

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they randomly fell into 10 columns and 5 rows? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone five rows of ten.






TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

The earth has been around for how long? billions of years?

if we dropped 50 oranges every minute over a billion years do you think it is possible that they would arrange into 10 rows of 5 oranges once?

btw i am not totally convinced about the scietific belief of how humans came to be, but to rule it out is just ignorant.

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.



Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."



TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO




"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to proved that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

as for the "you are an agnostic" argument. you obviously do not know the true meaning of athiest. athiests DISBELIEVE in god - that is, they do not rule out god completely (although there are the STRONG athiests, who claim outright there is no god).

BUT putting that aside, all christians must also be agnostic, for they ALSO don't know everything in the universe. Therefore everyone is agnostic by the logic shown above.

i have seen the video that outlines all these things and i have to say it is laughable.

this is coming from someone who is agnostic :S

[AKR]

This is coming from the same guy who couldn't even put forth the effort to read JBDW's post (which, by the way, I take my hat off to). Look, it's not his job to educate you. If don't want people to get hostile, educate YOURSELF before spouting off rubbish.

That goes for all you "if there's no God then where did we come from, LOL" idiots.

you're right. although i think i should try to not be hostile, everyone here is responsible for their own education. that's what books, websites, and classrooms are for. if someone is not educated on something, s/he cannot reasonbly argue against it and should not look to be educated mid-thread.

[JBDW]

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

My sentiments exactly...

This is the watchmaker's argument ALL OVER AGAIN.

[JBDW]

One very important to note, for everyone reading this thread.

If you have this impression that the nature, or the universe, occurs through single-step evolution, then it is absolutely no surprise that you find it completely impossible.

If, on the other hand, you realise that what is actually happening is CUMULATIVE evolution, then everything makes more sense. The apparent 'perfect' design and 'harmony' of the universe is simply due to natural selection.

Any part of the universe which does not fit in well with the others doesn't exist. Only harmonious parts will. A common example used by theists is that the orbit of the planets is accurate to an extremely small degree. While it IS amazing, it does not prove that it is somehow designed by an intelligent being. Simply because if the orbits were not accurate, the planets would NO LONGER BE IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. Natural selection at its finest.

[The_Philosopher]

the teleological argument has been countered so many times and there are so many arguments against it it's not even funny.

To be honest, i'm not sure what to think about religion. But as Pascal said, if you're religious, if you die and were right, you'll go to heaven, if you were wrong, you'll just die and never know about it. If you're an athiest, if you're right you'll just die and never know about it, but if you're wrong you'll go to hell.

[fkn_give_me_abs]

the teleological argument has been countered so many times and there are so many arguments against it it's not even funny.

To be honest, i'm not sure what to think about religion. But as Pascal said, if you're religious, if you die and were right, you'll go to heaven, if you were wrong, you'll just die and never know about it. If you're an athiest, if you're right you'll just die and never know about it, but if you're wrong you'll go to hell.

basically you have a 1/1000000 (guesstimate?) chance of being the right religion (assuming one religion is right, out of all the religions on earth).

there isnt' simply christianity and atheism as the only two options here.

[Persecuted]

Fox did the research on the microspheres.

Could you post a source for your "credible scientists" debunking these claims?

I wouldn't say Davies is agnostic...have you read any of his *other* books?


That entire Davies article is simply opinion. He has nothing of substance in there. He simply says that to him, it appears as if the universe was designed. He has a bunch of degrees, but degrees don't make you right. Until he presents valid evidence, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to throw him in the "who cares" pile.

I would like to learn more about these microspheres. Please post some article links or something if you can.

Unfortunately i haven't read any of his books, i really should i thoroughly enjoyed his templestone prize speech.

I would however still contend that he is actually more than an agnostic i have a DVD called "The Privleged Planet" in which Davies speaks and it seems from what he says he is leaning towards a theistic belief.

I could be wrong, but it is apparent in this DVD of his skepticism for material atheism.

Why would you throw a brilliant mind like Paul Davies in a "Who cares" pile?

I would contend that his lack of presuppositions (Theistic and Atheistic) are a great addition to "the great debate".

For credible sources on the lack of a prebiotic soup, some quotes:

`Based on the foregoing geochemical assessment, we conclude that both in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario "the myth of the prebiotic soup."' (Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. & Olsen, R.L., The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p.66).


"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence."

* Denton, Michael
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986
p.261


Taken from the book,

Life Evolving : Molecules, Mind, and Meaning by Christian de Duve

"Geochemists and planetary physicists have conclusively demonstrated that this soup simply didn't exist. The neutral atmosphere of the early earth could not form prebiotics. In addition, there was sufficient photogenic oxygen in the atmosphere and radiogenic (radiation-induced) oxygen in the oceans to destroy them if they did form. No "prebiotic soup" has ever been found, although "post-biotics" are extremely common."


For further reading i recommend typing in google "no prebiotic soup"


In regards to the Urey/Miller experiment consider below:

"Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey action does not produce amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve as the predecessors of other important biopolymer building blocks. Thus, by challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge the very existence of the "prebiotic soup", with its richness of biologically important organic compounds. Moreover, so far, no geochemical evidence for the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a number of scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that even if it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would have been too small to be meaningful for prebiotic evolution."

* Noam Lahav (1999)
Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins
Oxford University Press, 1999, p138-139)


Are these sources credible enough?

[Persecuted]

One very important to note, for everyone reading this thread.

If you have this impression that the nature, or the universe, occurs through single-step evolution, then it is absolutely no surprise that you find it completely impossible.

If, on the other hand, you realise that what is actually happening is CUMULATIVE evolution, then everything makes more sense. The apparent 'perfect' design and 'harmony' of the universe is simply due to natural selection.

Not meaning to be harsh but i can't believe you have coupled "natural selection" with cosmic evolution.

Natural selection only applies to self replicating or pro creating organism's that bear favourable changes in relation to survival...

As far as can be told no one has actually witnessed the birth of a star, moreover stars and planets do not reproduce or self replicate the way organism's do so natural selection simply does not apply to such "ordered systems".

Any part of the universe which does not fit in well with the others doesn't exist. Only harmonious parts will. A common example used by theists is that the orbit of the planets is accurate to an extremely small degree. While it IS amazing, it does not prove that it is somehow designed by an intelligent being. Simply because if the orbits were not accurate, the planets would NO LONGER BE IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. Natural selection at its finest.

What you have said here doesn't make much sense to me either... How can you prove the non-existence of unfit parts of the universe?

Has anyone even come up with a theory for this?

I haven't heard theists use that common example of accurate orbits.

Perhaps you mean the fact that the earth is in a narrowly defined habitable zone in relation to distance to the sun? Or do you mean gravity is extremely accurate to a small degree?

What you might not show is that physicists have actually demonstrated that if the force of gravity were the slightest bit stronger the universe would have collapsed in on itself during the big bang.

If it were slightly weaker stars never would have formed hence planets and life itself would never have formed.


We also have other forces acting that are also narrowly defined to be suitable for ordered existence. Such as the strong and weak nuclear forces.

But of course to the atheist these are all brute fact coincidences...

[Persecuted]

i aint reading everything as i look so down upon this argument its not funny, like i cant even comprehend how some ppl are so gullible to believe such rubbish.. but unless you got some ground breaking evidence of this god you believe in, theres no reason to continue the debate.

You don't want to read or respond to my comments that's fine don't sit here and call anyone ignorant when you have not even presented a decent argument/case. In fact i haven't heard you say anything really intelligible for the support of evolution or your beliefs so don't criticise others.

I think the only intelligent atheist statements i've read on here have come from Nuggz.

[Persecuted]

basically you have a 1/1000000 (guesstimate?) chance of being the right religion (assuming one religion is right, out of all the religions on earth).

there isnt' simply christianity and atheism as the only two options here.

Actually pascals wager comes alot closer than that... We really only have three religions today which refer to hell or punishment..

These are of course Judaism (loosely), Christianity and Islam...

Judaism isn't axactly clear on the hell issue...

Other religions such as hinduism etc mostly believe in reincarnation of some sort...

So from a christian perspective i only need to really worry if Islam is true for this wager... maybe judaism as well but probably not so much.

[101101]

cue tumbleweed.

[C_Kent]

Wow you people need to be roundhoused. Everybody has their beliefs, you might not agree with the other person so just drop it. DAMN!! You people are going to kill each other over this. Once you are all done killing each other I'm going to take all of your money.

[NuggzTheNinja]

I would like to learn more about these microspheres. Please post some article links or something if you can.

Unfortunately i haven't read any of his books, i really should i thoroughly enjoyed his templestone prize speech.

I would however still contend that he is actually more than an agnostic i have a DVD called "The Privleged Planet" in which Davies speaks and it seems from what he says he is leaning towards a theistic belief.

I could be wrong, but it is apparent in this DVD of his skepticism for material atheism.

Why would you throw a brilliant mind like Paul Davies in a "Who cares" pile?

I would contend that his lack of presuppositions (Theistic and Atheistic) are a great addition to "the great debate".

For credible sources on the lack of a prebiotic soup, some quotes:

`Based on the foregoing geochemical assessment, we conclude that both in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario "the myth of the prebiotic soup."' (Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. & Olsen, R.L., The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p.66).


"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence."

* Denton, Michael
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986
p.261


Taken from the book,

Life Evolving : Molecules, Mind, and Meaning by Christian de Duve

"Geochemists and planetary physicists have conclusively demonstrated that this soup simply didn't exist. The neutral atmosphere of the early earth could not form prebiotics. In addition, there was sufficient photogenic oxygen in the atmosphere and radiogenic (radiation-induced) oxygen in the oceans to destroy them if they did form. No "prebiotic soup" has ever been found, although "post-biotics" are extremely common."


For further reading i recommend typing in google "no prebiotic soup"


In regards to the Urey/Miller experiment consider below:

"Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey action does not produce amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve as the predecessors of other important biopolymer building blocks. Thus, by challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge the very existence of the "prebiotic soup", with its richness of biologically important organic compounds. Moreover, so far, no geochemical evidence for the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a number of scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that even if it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would have been too small to be meaningful for prebiotic evolution."

* Noam Lahav (1999)
Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins
Oxford University Press, 1999, p138-139)


Are these sources credible enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/b...rospheres.html

I'm not discounting the validity of Davies research or calling him stupid, but the quote from him was simply opinion. It's not like he found any conclusive evidence. I don't like when people say "Well this famous guy believes this, so it must be true!" because that's complete and utter horse sh-t when you compare it to the larger picture.

Michael Behe, the "inventor" of ID theory, is a biochemist with a bunch of legitimate research out there. However, his arguments for ID are NOT based on science. He simply states that because systems appear to be irreducibly complex, such as the immune system/blood clot cascade, it seems as if there's no explanation other than intelligent design. This is a cop out, and his arguments have been refuted numerous times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

My point is: just because some intelligent, famous person gives their opinion on something, that doesn't make it true. Davies believes in ID in the universe, sure. But for every smart physicist that ascribes to ID on their own time, there's an equal or greater number who ascribe to different beliefs.

This article addresses Hoyle's argument...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

As for De Duve, he's hardly a creationist.

From Publishers Weekly

In a work of majestic sweep and bold speculation, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist de Duve presents an awesome panorama of life on Earth, from the first biomolecules to the emergence of the human mind and our species' future. Professor emeritus at Manhattan's Rockefeller University, de Duve rejects the view that life arose through a series of accidents, nor does he invoke God, goal-directed causes or vitalism, which regards living beings as matter animated by vital spirit. Instead, in a remarkable synthesis of biochemistry, paleontology, evolutionary biology, genetics and ecology, he argues for a meaningful universe in which life and mind emerged, inevitably and deterministically, because of prevailing conditions. Starting with a single-celled organism, resembling modern bacteria, which appeared 3.8 billion years ago and gave rise to all forms of life on earth today, de Duve delineates seven successive ages corresponding to increasing levels of complexity. He predicts that our species may evolve into a "human hive" or planetary superorganism, a society in which individuals would abandon some of their freedom for the benefit of all; alternately, if Homo sapiens disappears, he envisages our replacement by another intelligent species.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Sounds fairly standard. His argument is that life would be found on any planet with appropriate conditions. Soup or no soup, De Duve and I are essentially arguing the same thing. From what I can tell, though, he's suggesting that the necessary compounds were brought via meteorite or something of the sort. I wouldn't rule that out.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../381059a0.html

These guys found that, on mineral surfaces, polymerization can produce longer polypeptides. In other words, it's easier to make protein on rocks.

Essentially, the views of the scientific community change with additional knowledge, however to call science "wrong" simply because a 50 year old experiment suggests a theory which seems unfeasible is ludicrous, considering the fact that between now and then, significant research has been conducted to mold our model of the evolution of primitive life on earth.

Is Miller and Urey's model 100% accurate? Of course not, but it gives us insight into a possible mechanism.

[NuggzTheNinja]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...cs/design.html


The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The banana-the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy
To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.





TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious




Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (For full quote see the footnote at the end of the page.)

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."





Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe;a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."





TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

___ YES ___ NO

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________




Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they randomly fell into 10 columns and 5 rows? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone five rows of ten.






TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________


The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.



Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."



TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO




"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to proved that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

ROFL the banana argument is laughable, and a coke can OBVIOUSLY has a designer: people.

This really means jack sh-t, though, because 2 coke cans don't bone each other and beget other coke cans, nor do they metabolize, grow, have a phospholipid membrane, motility, etc. They aren't alive.

Dumbest argument ever. NEXT!

[riptor]

Biological predictions:

Atheists used to insist that certain organs were "vesitigial" because they seemed to serve no apparent use. As a result of this it was standard practice if a doctor was operating on somebodies abdomen to remove the appendix even if it was not causing problems.

We know now that the appendix along with the tonsils are certainly not vestigial and they play an important role in the immune systems response to infections.

Vestigal doesn't mean useless.

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB361.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB361_1.html

Yes the appendix is used somewhat by the immune system, but you can get by just fine without it. It is a leftover organ from when we used to eat tough roots and other tought plant material. About seven percent of people get appendicitis, which can be fatal if it is not removed. Just think how many people died because of this organ before modern surgery.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360_1.html