Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I think about it seems illogical that said molecules acted without guidance or intellegence to form, of all things the solar system and human life.
Why do things work?
The atheist may say "I don't know". If you don't know then why be so sure that it wasn't God. The spiritual is not detectable by the material.
The atheist worldview is based on opinion, speculation and hypothesis. There is no evidence to support their worldview.
Ive had several atheists now tell me that an atheistic worldview is not based on scientific evidence., so, that seems to back up your conclusions. It is interesting that such a Group seems to somehow know that a personal theistic Creator doesnt exist nor is needed with all certainty ...yet thinks Nothing produced Something from nothing by nothing to which even atheist philosopher David Hume pronounced absurd : " I never asserted so absurd a proposition that something could arise from nothing " . Either THAT, or, they dont know how it came to be but they DO know it involved absolutely no intelligent, personal, directive Source.
Atheism is embraced by complete faith...and faith is the substance that makes up a religion. Not a very palatable thought for many.
How come we have all this razor edge teleology, complexity , great order, harmonious solar system , beauty, the highly personal, logic, extreme wonders in the animal kingdom such as the Monarch Butterflys migrational habits, direct informational messages in the DNA molecule as a blueprint for building, and some 60 independent anatomical systems to the Human Body all working in unison , et al, ad infinitum....when we are expected to believe it is all by chance, for no ultimate purpose, and derived from Nothing ?
In consideration of this, doesnt an atheistic worldview require a ton of blind faith that it all 'just happened' without a shred of guided direction ?
Because if the universe was unbalanced as a whole or if the forces behind creation themselves were either too unbalanced or even too balanced it wouldn't have produced galaxies, stars, planets and everything else in it in the first place.
Plus the universe had at least 10 or so sextillion chances to randomly produce a planet that was capable of producing life, and life itself evolved over 3 billion years to meet the conditions of the planet (in other words, this planet isn't necessarily suitable for life, life here is suitable for this planet). That life started extremely simple and many versions of life on earth were able to exponentially grow in complexity because of same basic mathematical certainty that allows stars and planets to form.
And to the lucky sentient beings on that planet... they would never even realize they won the cosmic lottery, because they can't go out and see what is/isn't on all the other planets in the universe.
It's not that difficult to understand. If there was a god, all he would of needed to do is ignite the big bang then sit back and watch... everything else clearly came about on it's own thanks to natural physics.
To me, that is far more dynamic and beautiful than some dude in the sky with a big beard who built the universe as we see it today and is constantly tinkering with the universe to keep it working.
The only real question is what caused the big bang itself... and science does not know the answer to that question nor pretend it does.
Oh, will let us try a theist response shall we....
'There is masses of evidence!! You just refuse to see it.. You are scientifically (replacing the word spiritually) blind. You need to open your eyes and look around you'.
It is only theists who believe that things come from 'nothing'. You don't appear to have any problem with your god coming from nothing or it creating everything from nothing.
Just what is it with you theist constantly harping on about atheists having 'faith'?? It's as if you realise just how stupid and illogical it is to hold beliefs based on 'faith' and so you wan't to try to pin faith-based beliefs on us too, just so you can say ...'see you atheists are just as stupid and illogical as we theists because you believe things on 'faith''!!
Well Sir, we BOTH have faith when it comes to a worldview. Its just a matter of how much faith is required to connect the dots : A precious few based on already having a personal existence and scientifically confirmed razor edge precise complexity, or, an infinite amount based on the personal deriving from a cloud of molecules and an accidental pond protozoa thru compilations of random accidents thru chance....eventually producing everything we have today. Have you truly got that kind of stretched faith ... or is the underlying motive what Evolutionist Richard Lewontin publicly declared :' ...we must not allow a divine foot in the door' (due to the implications it personally has) ?
Ive had several atheists now tell me that an atheistic worldview is not based on scientific evidence., so, that seems to back up your conclusions. It is interesting that such a Group seems to somehow know that a personal theistic Creator doesnt exist nor is needed with all certainty ...yet thinks Nothing produced Something from nothing by nothing to which even atheist philosopher David Hume pronounced absurd : " I never asserted so absurd a proposition that something could arise from nothing " . Either THAT, or, they dont know how it came to be but they DO know it involved absolutely no intelligent, personal, directive Source.
Atheism is embraced by complete faith...and faith is the substance that makes up a religion. Not a very palatable thought for many.
How many years of being told that there is NO ATHEIST WORLD VIEW is it going to take before it penetrates that thick skull of yours? Atheists are defined by one thing, and one thing only....We do not believe in any gods...No world view and no faith required.
Because if the universe was unbalanced as a whole or if the forces behind creation themselves were either too unbalanced or even too balanced it wouldn't have produced galaxies, stars, planets and everything else in it in the first place.
Plus the universe had at least 10 or so sextillion chances to randomly produce a planet that was capable of producing life, and life itself evolved over 3 billion years to meet the conditions of the planet (in other words, this planet isn't necessarily suitable for life, life here is suitable for this planet). That life started extremely simple and many versions of life on earth was able to exponentially grow in complexity because of same basic mathematical certainty that allows stars and planets to form.
And to the lucky sentient beings on that planet... they would never even realize they won the cosmic lottery, because they can't go out and see what is/isn't on all the other planets in the universe.
It's not that difficult to understand. If there was a god, all he would of needed to do is ignite the big bang then sit back and watch... everything else clearly came about on it's own thanks to natural physics.
The only real question is what caused the big bang itself... and science does not know the answer to that question nor pretend it does.
If you took apart a watch and dumped all the pieces out onto a table then as quickly as you could, pushed all the pieces into a box and shuffled them, then dumped them onto the table....do you think you could make a fully functioning complete Watch again doing it 10 sextillion times ?
The assertion that our cosmos, solar system, earth, dna, etc.. including 150 plus exceedingly razor edge precise Physics Constants of our cosmos working in unison (some to the 150th decimal point in critical tolerance) could first pop into existence then proceed to provide a very specific goal, because we have time, matter, and chance on our side....is the greatest example of ludicrous blind faith ever postulated .
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]
The we don't know stuff is where the theist then come and slap a big yellow sticker with godunnit on those areas we have no definitive answers. That really is a way to move science forward Doh
In fact, the godunnit explanation is no explanation at all, it has no data as to how or why or anything. IOW it is a cul-de-sac.
Are we really expected to accept the alternate dust-puppy and spare-rib scenario as a plausible explanation? Like there were eyewitnesses to that event (yup I can roll that argument back on you folk too)
Particularly in light of what we know of XX and YY chromosomes, a spare rib would be a clone and unable to breed. Science has taught us that and thus the creation event is bogus.
Now with all the recent DNA goodies, the theists claim this is how god did it all along. Err no sorry folk, you cannot have evolution and creation, they are diametrically opposed concepts.
The simple question we all ask;
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF CREATIONISM? (w/o using science of course)
So far NO ONE has provided us of any convincing data, just teh faith card.
The only reason to reject evolution by theists is that it refutes the bible in totality and relegates bible-god to fiction where it belongs.
As science has showed us the truth, your bible god has gone from an interactive, 3D revealing one to one that is outside of time and space. IOW he is now soo far away and in another dimension so he/it is no longer relevant.
The reality is god has and is where it always was, between your ears in your imagination.
The reason I and other thinking hominids don't auto-default to the invented Abrahamic God, or Muhammed or any other God (Thor, Woden, et al...) is that we have indeed systematically questioned, logically tested and then re-done tests of all the stuff God is supposed to have done with but a simple wave of His hand. But those deeds, at the very least, have been shown over and over to be both impossible and impossible.
If, that is, one is going with the supposedly logical argument. Which Christians often do when, for instance, they try to defend Noah's Ark and the like. They thus ignore all the established and tested rules of molecular behavior which, at their most basic DO, yep, control the weather, the formation of other more complex molecules, the effects of gravity, and so on.
So unless you choose, block-headedly, to just mockingly dismiss all those known rules, but JUST FOR THE GENESIS PERIOD (and how stikingly convenient for you...), and want to go with The Magic Solution, then your version always falls on it's pointy little head, Kah-Thud.
You then trot out the illogicality of a natural creation-biogenesis event, saying, for instance, and with amazing lefvel of uneducated illiteracy, the usual suspects, like "Well, if that's so, why doesn't a tornado, passing over a junkyard, create a functional 747? Huh, answer me that one, you idiot scientists!"
Well, you know exactly the answer why, or if not, we always tell you why that's not a valid argument. And how natural DNA/RNA-based life forms both can and do have a functioning and proven process for trial and error testing of all the output, with the "NFG" ones obviously being deleted. But with the good ones obviously passing it all along to the next generation and with possible increased complexity!
But now as well, as icing on the cake of knowledge, we have Richard Lenski's documented proof of speciation (published in 2008, with (OMG!!) so much more coming soon! Unless of course, in your endless "quest to suppress", you guys raid his lab and burn him at the stake outside his lab...).
He did this with a specific strain of bacteria in an amazing 22 yr long irrefutable study in which the captured DNA evidence is clearly seen. (He had no idea back when he started this experiment that we'd even have DNA genome mapping with 100% accuracy! Wow! God musta been on
his game back then to set his one up!)
The good Doctor Lenski (who will soon enough join the hallowed ranks of Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking et all as a fully demonized and despised scientist-thinker...) has also offered to provide some culture samples to anyone with an honest request to re-do the experiment themselves.
Now oddly... hmmmmm... there have been NO Christian "scientists" taking him up on his generous offer, in which, true to all actual reliable science, his 2008 publication also provides a hands-on recipe for exactly how to do it all, again and again. I ask, for the umpteenth time, why do you guys not take this one on and prove us to be oh-so very wrong?
I know the answer, but you won't tell us, will you?
These changes in an organism's recorded genome, which provide some defining alterations to the genome, and when coupled with a few million years of available experimental time, plus the fact that natural organisms duplicate themselves in über-massive and uncountably large numbers, doing so exponentially with each new generation, result in macro-masses of new and diverse versions. Whom all then just do it again, but with "Transitional" genome variations. all easily seen now, and yet you continue to blurt out that there is "not even one shred of evidence!!"?
What, are the majority of Christian [and the less-vocal Islamic..] posters here that blindered by their pre-selected and unthinking beliefs? Apparently yes.
The resulting organisms back then, in the beginning and for the next few million years, are not "unimaginably complex", except if you have NO IDEA how it all works, has been repeatedly demonstrated here to be so. Nope: you guys just scream your "Proof of God from My Totally Awestruck Observation!" argument.
In which you then go on to provide additional proofs of your lack of understnding. "We didn't come from no darned ape!", or "How can we see so many millions of new species during the Cambrian exposion, which happened nearly overnight?" and so on. All demonstrably rubbish on it's face.
As well, this is hardly the same scenario as the "Tornado≠747!" banality". So... does that sink in and then you don't try to use it again and again and again?
Answer?: NO. You DO try to re-insert it yet again, knowing it's both banal and unrelated.
But still, as Huff and/or Nozz accurately point out, you demo to the lurking observers [those who are possibly hovering on the line of total conversion...] on these fora and threads, just how illogical and stubborn a group of intransigents you Christian apologists truly are, obviously proving to any interested reader their lack of intellectual honesty, educational achievements and backgrounds, and their stubborn lack of personal perseverance and moral integrity.
All while accusing all bio- and Evolutionary scientists, as an homogeneous cohort group, to be demonically possessed of vast dishonesty and bias.
Plus, you all consistently show a lack of ethics in not adhering to anything like Robert's Rules of "(debating) Order, in that you always systematically refuse to answer simple questions, knowing you would be instantly backed into an inescapable logical and theological corner! So ündt ergo; you just don't answer.
In a real debate, you'd therefore lose. The judge's decision? "Out you go!" QED, C'est fini, etc etc.
So please, by all means, do give us more inaccuracies and illogical claims to work with. It's sooooo easy, and as Rush the Bloviator nevertheless truthfully states, slightly paraphrased; "We can rebuke your false arguments with half our brains tied behind our backs, just to make it fair"!
So we are told by the ever shrinking circle of stellar evolutionists. How logical is it that a vast cloud ultimately gave us non material entities like reason, logic, truth, reason, love, an a human brain touted as THE most complex thing in the universe....when intelligent world reknown Scientists cant even begin to duplicate it ? I dont think you have the enormous faith required to believe in the common atheistic mantra of molecules to Man puerility.
Based on your tone and comments, I doubt that you're open to learning about the science which explains these phenomena. But I try to be optimistic. Anyway, stellar evolution is mainstream science. It doesn't require "faith" to believe that our solar system formed from a molecular cloud in interstellar space. We can see stellar and planetary systems being formed from nebulae all over the Milky Way galaxy. The Orion nebula is a prime example of a stellar nursery that is actually visible to the naked eye on a dark night. The Hubble space telescope has provided us images of protoplanetary disks in this nebula.
The human brain evolved from the brains of non-human ancestors. Many animals have been shown to display reasoning abilities, emotions and compassion. These qualities evolved over millions of years because of the many advantages they provide for species which have them, including group solidarity and a greater chance of survival in their environments. Mutations in DNA have been shown to cause changes in brain structure which lead to the development of these and many other qualities.
If you took apart a watch and dumped all the pieces out onto a table then as quickly as you could, pushed all the pieces into a box and shuffled them, then dumped them onto the table....do you think you could make a fully functioning complete Watch again doing it 10 sextillion times ?
The assertion that our cosmos, solar system, earth, dna, etc.. including 150 plus exceedingly razor edge precise Physics Constants of our cosmos working in unison (some to the 150th decimal point in critical tolerance) could first pop into existence then proceed to provide a very specific goal, because we have time, matter, and chance on our side....is the greatest example of ludicrous blind faith ever postulated .
That isn't what happened! That's what creationists think evolution is... and they obviously never went to school to learn about it.
Now with all the recent DNA goodies, the theists claim this is how god did it all along. Err no sorry folk, you cannot have evolution and creation, they are diametrically opposed concepts.
The simple question we all ask;
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF CREATIONISM? (w/o using science of course)
So far NO ONE has provided us of any convincing data, just teh faith card.
The only reason to reject evolution by theists is that it refutes the bible in totality and relegates bible-god to fiction where it belongs.
As science has showed us the truth, your bible god has gone from an interactive, 3D revealing one to one that is outside of time and space. IOW he is now soo far away and in another dimension so he/it is no longer relevant.
The reality is god has and is where it always was, between your ears in your imagination.
Perhaps this is the reality of theists.
Well plenty of theists believe in evolution, as do I. God crerated the laws of the universe as well as matter. So I guess you should save your post when you come across a Young Eath Creationist. Me? You're preaching to the choir.
Evolution does not refute the Bible as some may think, but it only draws into question two chapters of one of 66 books. When one understands the purpose of the creation story, it becomes a big "so what". The Bible is a collection of books. Not one book. Does evolution refute Jesus?
But with that said, most of your post was good.
Your conclusion is where I disagree. IMO science is making God bigger as we discover more and more of the complexity of the universe. It becomes less likely that this world came about by chance. Why does DNA contain a code? Codes do not come about by random chance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Why NOT! Indeed!
