Indeniable proof

I have read every post in this thread. If these questions had been answered definitively I would not ask them. The fact is that they can't be, so here we are.
so what do you wanna hear?



I agree that both are not easy to understand, but you don't have to choose. Many are undecided/unconvinced, which is why we like to talk about it.
technicalities. I understand that. I didn't mean you HAVE to pick ONE. The point is that neither situation is understandable. You can't use reasoning, you just have to pick. Or not pick.. wtf ever u wanna do. You just can't rationalize it.


As already posted by me, no one can prove either. One just has more facts and seems easier to swallow than the other.
if you read the post from ct after I told him good post... he made another good post. It basically said evolution of the universe and earth doesn't disprove christianity. And, easier to swallow is an opinion. Ask any porn star.



This sounds good at first glance but how can God "know" something that I haven't even decided on yet? It's just not possible. I understand just saying "He can because He's God" is good enough for some, and that's fine.
He's the almighty, all knowing. He knew how to create a fricken universe and you're arguing about him knowing the future? He knows the future... thats easy enough to swallow.


I like your analogy. Does this mean that it's absolutely not possible for her to use her free will and surprise you?
Yes. That's precisely what it means. Because it already happened. And I knew it would happen. If I went back in time to before it happened, I would KNOW. And it would be absolutely not possible for her to surprise me. Because I already know everything. Except god doesnt have to travel time to know. Thats the only difference in this situation.

If God exists where did he come from? Many will just say He always was. Why is it some people cannot accept that the universe always existed with no creator, yet have no problem believing that God (who is even greater than the universe) always existed with no creator? Just because some books written by man say so?

You haven’t been paying very close attention. Reread prior posts. You are running this discussion in a circle. As Rick mentioned, many/most of the questions you are posing have been thoroughly covered already. I will not rehash this material, for the sake of those who have already read and understood the proposed arguments. If you have other questions, I would be happy to reply. Let’s move forward.

I have read every post in this thread.
Many are undecided/unconvinced, which is why we like to talk about it.
I guess this thread proves that most people have made up their minds one way or another no matter what happens.

How could you have read every post, yet not notice that you have two opposing views on the same subject?

As already posted by me, no one can prove either. One just has more facts and seems easier to swallow than the other.

Agreed. I have tried to explain/support why in my opinion it is more logical to believe that God created the Universe and life on our planet, than random chance. New scientific discoveries over the last decade seem to be pointing us further in this direction.

This sounds good at first glance but how can God "know" something that I haven't even decided on yet? It's just not possible. I understand just saying "He can because He's God" is good enough for some, and that's fine.

Again, this has already been addressed.

From page 6:

Apparently he already knows how our whole lives will pan out before we are even born, so WTF? Its like those who are going to go to hell were already doomed before they were born.

Myself: “That’s a good point, and essentially true. But an eternal being transcends space and time. Again, we are getting into things that cannot be fully conceived by the human mind, so we may not find a satisfactory answer (this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try). From an eternal perspective, you could say that our lives are predetermined. Looking back from the future you could say that anything was predetermined by certain events, but that doesn’t preclude free-will from influencing those events. From God’s perspective all events from the beginning to the end of time have already happened. So yes, in creating human beings as He did, he knew that not all would choose Him, but apparently He saw having fellowship with those beings that do choose Him worth the cost.”

heres what I think about that though...

1.God gets mad at adam and eve for breaking a rule.
2. God gets mad and says.. okay fine... no more perfect world.
3. Rick is predetermined to go to hell.

Dammit!!!!

Why didn't he just make everything cherry so that we wouldnt get a chance to ruin eternity for ourselves? I really don't think it's cool. I mean... look at it like this... I live in a world overrun by offers of fame, fortune, a big dick, big muscles, a great workout machine, a super sharp knife set...

I mean, damn... all you gotta do, is give it a try, at no risk to you. You have nothing to lose.

religion is another offer. For eternal paradise, in a world with no suffering. But how are you gonna feel when you get to heaven and have this conversation with archangel Michael?.....





"Welcome to heaven! I'm archangel Michael. Prepare for eternity in paradise."

"Where's my wife? She died two years ago... When can I see her?"

"Ohhhhh... about that...."

"What?"

"Remember those business trips when you had to leave her home alone?"

"Yea...."

"Well, she didn't make it." "And Jesus says Welcome to heaven, we have your 1 bedroom one bath apartment ready. The singles lounge is open at 6 pm... and remember... no extra marital affairs in heaven. God is watching you. Have fun."

hahaha....it's like a swingers club....did i just say that? "Lord i apologize...."

Ct has done an an excellent job of answering questions and presenting his beliefs and I respect him for that. This is quite possibly the most important topic there can be. By re-entering similar questions or statements I am hoping that new people will join in. As much as I may respect one persons answers, I realize that this world contains a multitude of beliefs, none of which can be dismissed immediately as being false.

By stating at one point that "most have made up their minds" and at another that "many are undecided" I am merely making an observation that others usually fall into one or the other category.(most in the first) I may be fairly confident in my beliefs but am still at least partially open to other views, and always enjoy discussing them, which is why I am here. The fact that we have made it to 124 posts in a religion thread without having it locked because of flaming or personal attacks is somewhat commendable in itself. Peace to all.

Agreed. I have tried to explain/support why in my opinion it is more logical to believe that God created the Universe and life on our planet, than random chance. New scientific discoveries over the last decade seem to be pointing us further in this direction.



Not trying to be an ass here, just letting you know that your argument does not use logic. Logic follows a strict path that requires conclusions drawn from evidence, the classis phrase being "if p then q". This requires having a p in the first place. This also requires that something in your argument be testable, such that things can be shown to be wrong. No such things exist in your argument. You have absolutely no evidence to support anything that you say, the key word being evidence. In the realm of the scientific world, your argument doesn't even exist...it has no place in science. It cannot be tested in any way, shape, or form, and thus is not even considered to be a hypothesis. What it amounts to is what is referred to in engineering as a WAG (wild ass guess) with no knowledge of anything surrounding it. In order to be be even remotely convincing you need to stop attacking other theories and use EVIDENCE to show that your theory may be even plausible. Stop telling us how we are wrong because our arguments don't make sense. I could go on and on with honestly thousands of pieces of solid evidence that evolution occurs, without even mentioning what is wrong with creationism ideas. Could you do the same for creationism?

As far as your scientific evidence goes, I don't know where you get your information from, but nothing in the academic world is pusing us towards the idea that god created the world. I would say that it is becoming a bigger issue now so more Christian scientists are beginning to speak out on behalf of their religious beliefs. But the more discoveries we make, the more knowledge we gain about how natural processes work, and the more we begin to see how evolution really could work. This is especially true in molecular biology and biochemistry, where things were and still are not understood by the general population that are now easily explicable by anyone who has spent even a small amount of time studying the subjects.

you cant prove it wrong either.

And that's where the argument breaks down...of course I can't prove it wrong. How could I prove anything about something that is based in a fantasy world. The whole idea of god is just that, a fantasy, with not ONE shred of evidence to show that anything resembling your god exists or has had ANYTHING to do with our physical world.

I believe in knowledge, I believe in discovery, and I believe in scientific processes. Basing a world view upon something which has no basis in reality, no evidence, nothing to show for it, just does not make sense to me. Never has, never will. Basing a world view upon something that has an absolutely staggering amount of evidence supporting it makes sense, at least to me.

Sorry guys. I have been in Memphis for a week training some new guys on our cad. I'll try and jump in but I'm a little behind. I will just begin with the last post.

And that's where the argument breaks down...of course I can't prove it wrong. How could I prove anything about something that is based in a fantasy world. The whole idea of god is just that, a fantasy, with not ONE shred of evidence to show that anything resembling your god exists or has had ANYTHING to do with our physical world.

This is where faith comes in. What may be fantasy to you is reality to others. This is what stands us apart from those who don't believe. I know it's hard to understand from your point of view but no harder than us trying to understand the faith you have. Believe me that you also have faith in what is unseen.



I believe in knowledge, I believe in discovery, and I believe in scientific processes.

So do I.A belief in God doesn't automatically shut down our reasoning powers. We are not anti-science. Alot of wonderful things have been discovered by the use of science and I am sure it will continue.


Basing a world view upon something which has no basis in reality, no evidence, nothing to show for it, just does not make sense to me. Never has, never will. Basing a world view upon something that has an absolutely staggering amount of evidence supporting it makes sense, at least to me.


Yet you have faith in something you can't prove, can't see and can't feel and no one ever has. The beginning. The beginning of everything.
There are many guesses on the beginning but they are mearly guesses.
Science can get us to the second after but can't get us to the second before. Do you think they ever will?

Anyway....There is faith on both sides of that coin. Heads or tails? Call it in the air.

:2cents:

yes but those guesses have evidence behind them, their not just blind assumptions. like how the universe is constantly moving outward. and many other pieces of evidence that i cant remember right now because im not a physics expert. the beginnning of time is the best argument for creationism at the time because our technology and knowlege about the universe is very limited. creationist were saying the same thing about evolution 10 years ago but we have the ability to master the concept of evolution now and we almost fully understand it. and now many creationists allow leway in their beleifs to include evolution and say that it might have happened, because so much evidence stood against them and no logical creationist could deny it any longer. how long until the big bang theory gets enough evidence that creationists also have to allow room for it as well. how long before there is so much evidence against creation that no one beleives it anymore?

Sorry guys. I have been in Memphis for a week training some new guys on our cad. I'll try and jump in but I'm a little behind. I will just begin with the last post.


This is where faith comes in. What may be fantasy to you is reality to others. This is what stands us apart from those who don't believe. I know it's hard to understand from your point of view but no harder than us trying to understand the faith you have. Believe me that you also have faith in what is unseen.

So do I.A belief in God doesn't automatically shut down our reasoning powers. We are not anti-science. Alot of wonderful things have been discovered by the use of science and I am sure it will continue.


Yet you have faith in something you can't prove, can't see and can't feel and no one ever has. The beginning. The beginning of everything.
There are many guesses on the beginning but they are mearly guesses.
Science can get us to the second after but can't get us to the second before. Do you think they ever will?

Anyway....There is faith on both sides of that coin. Heads or tails? Call it in the air.

I just don't see how you can say that the two ideas are comparable as far as amount of faith is concerned. There is absolutely NOTHING to point to the idea that god exists. No evidence. Yet there is an unbelievable amount of evidence pointing to the idea that evolution occurs. Now I know that you believe in evolution to some degree, but some here do not. And their world view, as I said before, is nothing like mine in that there is absolutely no basis for the christian belief. This is not similar to a belief in evolution. Believing in evolution is analogous to believing that transition states exist in chemical reactions (which have never been isolated), or that electrons occupy molecular orbitals. We cannot prove that such things happen, because they cannot be observed. All of the evidence we have indicate that these things do occur. If they did not, everything we know about these subjects would essentially be nullified. So why doesn't the religious right challenge these ideas? Because they simply don't conflict with religious ideas. If they did, you can sure bet there would be a field day.

As far as the beginning is concerned, I do not claim to know or understand how this occurs. The most logical explanation for me is idea of a singularity occurring when space and time collapse and then begin to expand once again. I cannot put faith in the idea that some god created the world, because there is simply no reason for me to do so. I understand that the majority of people need something to believe in, so they turn to god, maybe because everyone else does, because it makes them feel better about an existence that is impossible to justify. But I will never be one of those who blindly takes things on faith. I need to be able to see and test and retest before I conclude that something makes sense...

I just don't see how you can say that the two ideas are comparable as far as amount of faith is concerned. There is absolutely NOTHING to point to the idea that god exists. No evidence. Yet there is an unbelievable amount of evidence pointing to the idea that evolution occurs. Now I know that you believe in evolution to some degree, but some here do not. And their world view, as I said before, is nothing like mine in that there is absolutely no basis for the christian belief. This is not similar to a belief in evolution. Believing in evolution is analogous to believing that transition states exist in chemical reactions (which have never been isolated), or that electrons occupy molecular orbitals. We cannot prove that such things happen, because they cannot be observed. All of the evidence we have indicate that these things do occur. If they did not, everything we know about these subjects would essentially be nullified. So why doesn't the religious right challenge these ideas? Because they simply don't conflict with religious ideas. If they did, you can sure bet there would be a field day.

Ok...we both believe that evolution happens. The difference is that you believe man comes from this evolution but I don't. Not a big deal just different perspectives on the the big picture. I won't argue that point.

As far as the beginning is concerned, I do not claim to know or understand how this occurs. The most logical explanation for me is idea of a singularity occurring when space and time collapse and then begin to expand once again.
Good theory but absolutely no proof.


I cannot put faith in the idea that some god created the world, because there is simply no reason for me to do so.

But you still believe in something you have no reason too.

I understand that the majority of people need something to believe in, so they turn to god, maybe because everyone else does, because it makes them feel better about an existence that is impossible to justify.

What keeps them believing though? Need? Most people will follow a path to it's logical end. If believing in God lead down a path that took us to a dead end why would we continue believing? I believe it's because it hasn't lead us to a dead end. It's hard to understand looking in just as what you put your faith in is hard for us to understand looking in from the outside. We believe we see why and so do you but I think when it comes to a belief system it's nearly impossible to really understand the other persons point of view.

But I will never be one of those who blindly takes things on faith.

Actually; Yes you will. You have already done it to a point.


I need to be able to see and test and retest before I conclude that something makes sense...

True science...I respect that.

so you beleive that man is excluded from evolution. why? why is our dna so similar to primates why are we so similar to them? why do we have organs we dont need or use? why is there fossil remains of primates that date us all the way back to primitive primates. the so called missing link creationist like to talk about has been found, many links have been found. i dont know why it isnt announced and put in the open. there is occasionaly specials about it on the discovery channel and in discover magazine. but it is there. people just dont like the fact that they are no more than primates, not special, just like any animal just a lot smarter.

so you beleive that man is excluded from evolution. why? why is our dna so similar to primates why are we so similar to them? why do we have organs we dont need or use? why is there fossil remains of primates that date us all the way back to primitive primates. the so called missing link creationist like to talk about has been found, many links have been found. i dont know why it isnt announced and put in the open. there is occasionaly specials about it on the discovery channel and in discover magazine. but it is there. people just dont like the fact that they are no more than primates, not special, just like any animal just a lot smarter.

I'm not saying man is excluded from evolution in the micro-evolution sense but in the macro-evolution sense. Sorry for not saying that part of it.

Missing link to what? Another more evolved primate? Did that primate have a soul or was it just another animal? Questions that I don't think scientist can answer.

as far as the whole "Faith" issue has been concerned, on this page, it all goes back to the beginning. The beginning of time.

Thrasher says that everything until the beginning can be explained by science.

So does everyone else.


We have a hard time agreeing what started it.

Personally, I dont think there is any scientific explanation for the "beginning" that wouldn't be as outstanding as God.


Time and space started by themselves? Interesting.

God did it? Interesting.

to me it's a toss up.


And what I think you don't understand Thrasher, is that the people who have dedicated their lives to God and spent countless hours working on a relationship with god, usually feel they have been given enough evidence of the presence of god, so that they don't need physical proof. Miracles, will power, strength in times of need, things just working out.... These are what christians rest their faith on. And it's a worthy cause.

The only reason those things don't mean anything to me is because I believe christianity is a way for people to fool themselves into being stronger by themselves, for themselves. I don't think we need a special being. I think we've already got the strength inside us, but some people can't figure out how to use it until they pretend there is a God supplying them with the will to continue. I just don't believe that.

I'm not saying man is excluded from evolution in the micro-evolution sense but in the macro-evolution sense. Sorry for not saying that part of it.

Missing link to what? Another more evolved primate? Did that primate have a soul or was it just another animal? Questions that I don't think scientist can answer.

do you have a soul? if humans have a so called "soul" prove it. where is this soul, how does it affect us, when do we develop it. what about a chimp, which shares many mental attributes with us, it thinks, it feels, it solves problems, but does it have soul?

as far as the whole "Faith" issue has been concerned, on this page, it all goes back to the beginning. The beginning of time.

Thrasher says that everything until the beginning can be explained by science.

So does everyone else.


We have a hard time agreeing what started it.

Personally, I dont think there is any scientific explanation for the "beginning" that wouldn't be as outstanding as God.


Time and space started by themselves? Interesting.

God did it? Interesting.

to me it's a toss up.


And what I think you don't understand Thrasher, is that the people who have dedicated their lives to God and spent countless hours working on a relationship with god, usually feel they have been given enough evidence of the presence of god, so that they don't need physical proof. Miracles, will power, strength in times of need, things just working out.... These are what christians rest their faith on. And it's a worthy cause.

The only reason those things don't mean anything to me is because I believe christianity is a way for people to fool themselves into being stronger by themselves, for themselves. I don't think we need a special being. I think we've already got the strength inside us, but some people can't figure out how to use it until they pretend there is a God supplying them with the will to continue. I just don't believe that.


u say its easier to beleive god started the universe. but which makes more sense, an explosion causing space to expand or a sentient being with unlinited power and wisdom just popping out of nowhere. it took intellegence billions of years to develop on earth but god can just develop instantly. occams razor "the simplest explination is usually the correct one"

u say its easier to beleive god started the universe.
No I don't say that. If I slipped and said it before, I apologize, but what I really think is that both are impossible to explain.

Logically it seems somewhat of a fantasy to imagine an all powerful being to just create the universe. But theres not really a logical explanation about time either.

If time did start, then what made it start? What about before it started? Was time paused? If it was paused then.. what keeps it from pausing now? Multitudes of questions about that too.

That's what I like about the idea of a singularity. There is no beginning or end of time or space. The universe at some point will reverse its infinite expansion and begin to collapse upon itself. When space reaches some infinitessimaly small state, when all matter has been compressed to the highest possible degree, a release of energy occurs that drives the reformation of the universe. No beginning or end of space, and no beginning or end of time. I always had the most trouble with the idea that at some point time and space didn't exist. I went to a strict catholic grade school and high school, and the idea of total non existence of the universe was ultimately what turned me against my religious faith. IMO nothing can exist outside of existence...

On the oscillating universe theory, it is assumed that the universe contains enough matter to bring the ever exceeding rate of expansion to a halt, but there seems to be an insufficient amount of matter in the universe to accomplish this task.

"The latest measurements show that the universe does not appear to contain enough mass to stop the expansion, even when exotic matter is taken into account. Thermodynamic considerations involving the curvature of space also eliminate the possibility of a bounce even if a collapse did occur... The oscillating model, like the infinite, hesitation, and steady-state models, has been abandoned by almost all scientists."
11 Sources (http://www.reasons.org/chapters/anchorage/chance_vs_id_english.pdf)

“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.” G.K. Chesterton

“There is a kind of religion in science…that every event in the universe can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event. This faith is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces we cannot discover.” (Astronomer Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

Thrasher, my views do use logic. However, they are in the realm of the metaphysical, which we know exists, because all scientific laws applicable to our universe break down at 10^-43 sec from the beginning of time, thus you are now dealing with the “meta” physical.

The odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10^40,000 to one.
In science an event whose probability is less 10^50 to one, is considered practically impossible. Furthermore, the opposite event may be expected to occur with certainty.

So could an outside source have had an influence, or is in more logical to believe in a statistical impossibility?

Regarding attacking your position, I don’t personally care whether macro-evolution exists or not. But, many people are taught that it is a “fact”, when indeed it is not. I would like the uninformed to know that there is no empirical basis for such assumptions. Moreover, many of the facts that make evolution so improbable point to an intelligent designer.

In the realm of the scientific world, your argument doesn't even exist...it has no place in science. It cannot be tested in any way, shape, or form, and thus is not even considered to be a hypothesis.

You can do better than that thrasher, that’s a beginner’s anti-creationist argument.

"... Unlike mathematicians, scientists rarely provide strict logical demonstrations (deductive proofs) to justify their theories. Instead, scientific arguments often utilize inductive inference and predictive testing, neither of which produces certainty. As Owen Gingerich has argued, much of the reason for Galileo's conflict with the Vatican stemmed from Galileo's inability to meet scholastic standards of deductive certainty a standard that he regarded as neither relevant to nor attainable by scientific reasoning. Similar episodes subsequently made it clear that science does not necessarily possess a superior epistemic status; scientific knowledge, like other knowledge, is subject to uncertainty…
… Sir Karl Popper's falsifiability. According to Popper, scientific theories were more meaningful than nonscientific ideas because they referred only to empirically falsifiable entities. Yet this, too, proved to be a problematic criterion. First, falsification turns out to be difficult to achieve. Rarely are the core commitments of theories directly tested via prediction. Instead, predictions occur when core theoretical commitments are conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses, thus always leaving open the possibility that auxiliary hypotheses, not core commitments, are responsible for failed predictions.

Newtonian mechanics, for example, assumed as its core three laws of motion and the theory of universal gravitation. On the basis of these, Newton made a number of predictions about the positions of planets in the solar system. When observations failed to corroborate some of his predictions, he did not reject his core assumptions. Instead, he scrutinized some of his auxiliary hypotheses to explain the discrepancies between theory and observation. For example, he examined his working assumption that planets were perfectly spherical and influenced only by gravitational force. As Imre Lakatos has shown, Newton's refusal to repudiate his core in the face of anomalies enabled him to refine his theory and eventually led to its tremendous success. Newton's refusal to accept putatively falsifying results certainly did not call into question the scientific status of his gravitational theory or his three laws.

The function of auxiliary hypotheses in scientific testing suggests that many scientific theories, including those in so-called hard sciences, may be very difficult, if not impossible, to falsify conclusively. Yet many theories that have been falsified in practice via the consensus judgment of the scientific community must qualify as scientific according to the falsifiability criterion. Since they have been falsified, they are obviously falsifiable, and since they are falsifiable, they would seem to be scientific…”
Stephen C. Meyer - Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.

A few of the scientists who are skeptical of evolution. (www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf)

Here’s a creation model for you. (www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.shtml)

do you have a soul? if humans have a so called "soul" prove it. where is this soul, how does it affect us, when do we develop it. what about a chimp, which shares many mental attributes with us, it thinks, it feels, it solves problems, but does it have soul?

If humans do not have a soul, then I would assume that we have no greater importance than any other species of life. Are you a vegetarian?

u say its easier to beleive god started the universe. but which makes more sense, an explosion causing space to expand or a sentient being with unlinited power and wisdom just popping out of nowhere.

How does an explosion, without anything causing it, make sense?

God doesn’t pop out of nowhere. The idea that He has always existed, is of course unimaginable, but so is an infinite universe, as all astronomers believe it to be.

I have to admit that the first article raises some interesting ideas, but overall is a mass of hogwash. I will pick on one idea that jumped out at me, though there certainly were others:

The formation of complex molecules like proteins by any chemical processes we have ever seen is statistically impossible.

Is that some sort of a joke, or is he serious? Proteins are nothing more than a certain chain of amino acids folded into a specific pattern. The mechanism is actually rather simple, and only requires a few steps: first, a hydrophobic residue core contained in the primary sequence that largely excludes water and aqueous solution, second some sort of secondary structre which ALL amino acid sequences thermodynamically tend to form, and tertiary and quaternary structures whose folding are determined by primary structure. You know what's funny about this? Proteins that are conserved across species (like hemogolobin) have the EXACT SAME RESIDUES at the portions of the proteins that are functional. You know what else is funny? The portions of the conserved proteins that are not functional are differnet to varying degrees. But the real kicker is, the larger the divergence between the species, the higher the number of substituted residues at non functional portions of the protein, and the relationship is LINEAR.


You can do better than that thrasher, that’s a beginner’s anti-creationist argument.

"... Unlike mathematicians, scientists rarely provide strict logical demonstrations (deductive proofs) to justify their theories. Instead, scientific arguments often utilize inductive inference and predictive testing, neither of which produces certainty. As Owen Gingerich has argued, much of the reason for Galileo's conflict with the Vatican stemmed from Galileo's inability to meet scholastic standards of deductive certainty a standard that he regarded as neither relevant to nor attainable by scientific reasoning. Similar episodes subsequently made it clear that science does not necessarily possess a superior epistemic status; scientific knowledge, like other knowledge, is subject to uncertainty…
… Sir Karl Popper's falsifiability. According to Popper, scientific theories were more meaningful than nonscientific ideas because they referred only to empirically falsifiable entities. Yet this, too, proved to be a problematic criterion. First, falsification turns out to be difficult to achieve. Rarely are the core commitments of theories directly tested via prediction. Instead, predictions occur when core theoretical commitments are conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses, thus always leaving open the possibility that auxiliary hypotheses, not core commitments, are responsible for failed predictions.

So what you're trying to convey is the idea that physical laws are comparable to mathematical proofs, and that evolution is in a completely different realm outside of that? If that's what you're trying to say here, I won't even bother, that's just laughable.

A few of the scientists who are skeptical of evolution.

Would like me to dig up a list of all of the pHD's and MD's who support evolution? I didn't think so, Your list would be an embarassment compared to the quality and qunatity of a lift I could produce.

Here’s a creation model for you.

That is kindergarten evolution. Two words nullify his argument: Genetic Drift.

do you have a soul? if humans have a so called "soul" prove it. where is this soul, how does it affect us, when do we develop it. what about a chimp, which shares many mental attributes with us, it thinks, it feels, it solves problems, but does it have soul?

Yes. Can't. It's not something you can point to(at least not here). Some people it doesn't effect and some it does in many different ways. We are born with it. No.

Blackscorpion, the bottom line is that the soul is like God. Can I prove His existance to someone who doesn't know Him and has no interest ? No.
Sorry I can't be more helpful than that but that's just the way it is. Faith.

It's very similar to the faith in the universe that many believe in as their god. They won't admit it that it is their god but look at it like this. It has the same attributes as God does. It is everywhere, it has no beginning and no end, it is the creator and is all powerful. They can't explain how it always was just there or how it had the ability to create life against all odds. It just happened. :2cents:


Anyway... Interesting topic. I'll try and get on here a little more but it's getting a little crazy at work right now and I am putting in a lot of OT.

Later
DGB

If humans do not have a soul, then I would assume that we have no greater importance than any other species of life. Are you a vegetarian?-quote
lol no i am not a vegetarian. i love meat. form a big picture no humans are no more important. but from a smaller picture yes we are because we think and have emotions, while others animals do this as well imo, our thoughts and emaotions are the most complex. im not saying human life is not important but rather in the big picture it doesnt really matter.

Yes. Can't. It's not something you can point to(at least not here). Some people it doesn't effect and some it does in many different ways. We are born with it. No.

Blackscorpion, the bottom line is that the soul is like God. Can I prove His existance to someone who doesn't know Him and has no interest ? No.
Sorry I can't be more helpful than that but that's just the way it is. Faith.

It's very similar to the faith in the universe that many believe in as their god. They won't admit it that it is their god but look at it like this. It has the same attributes as God does. It is everywhere, it has no beginning and no end, it is the creator and is all powerful. They can't explain how it always was just there or how it had the ability to create life against all odds. It just happened. :2cents:


Anyway... Interesting topic. I'll try and get on here a little more but it's getting a little crazy at work right now and I am putting in a lot of OT.

Later
DGB

if you dont use logic and reasoning i cant argue with you. you cant have a debate about something that cant be proved. its all opinion if you cant back it up with scientific evidence. and how can having a soul affect some and not others. its like saying how can a brain affect you and it has no effect on other people.


it seems like creationists like to throw around the one in a billion trillion chance that dna formed, when in fact it is not that complex. in labs they have formed ammino acids out of nothing but raw organic compounds, which are everywhere in nature, then the natural process of ammino acids assimilating into rna and rna folding in on itself to form dna. i actually just heard a lecture about this the other day.
step 1
small organic molecules in a high energy enviroment
1. sugars
2. proteins
3. nucteotides
step 2
theese molecules accumulated over time to form large polymers
step 3
interaction among theese macromolecules leading to organelles and protibions, small masses of organic molecules that share many attributes of cells.
step 4
the sucessful types can copy them selves with rna

if you dont use logic and reasoning i cant argue with you. you cant have a debate about something that cant be proved. its all opinion if you cant back it up with scientific evidence.
You mean like how the universe started from nothing?

and how can having a soul affect some and not others. its like saying how can a brain affect you and it has no effect on other people.


It's not so much the soul itself that is affecting them as much as it is the lack of interest in it. If you don't believe in it then you don't care where it ends up.


it seems like creationists like to throw around the one in a billion trillion chance that dna formed, when in fact it is not that complex. in labs they have formed ammino acids out of nothing but raw organic compounds, which are everywhere in nature, then the natural process of ammino acids assimilating into rna and rna folding in on itself to form dna. i actually just heard a lecture about this the other day.
step 1
small organic molecules in a high energy enviroment
1. sugars
2. proteins
3. nucteotides
step 2
theese molecules accumulated over time to form large polymers
step 3
interaction among theese macromolecules leading to organelles and protibions, small masses of organic molecules that share many attributes of cells.
step 4
the sucessful types can copy them selves with rna

So you are saying that someone guided this process? Intelligent design so to speak?

Ok, let's take a look at how "simple" it would be for an amino acid, let alone a protein or RNA, to form independent of the controlled conditions of a laboratory.

Stanley Miller pioneered this field, and he said:

"Arguments concerining the composition of the primitive atmosphere are particularly controversal. It is important, therefore, to state our own prejudice clearly. We believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions."

There is no known evidence that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere. On the contrary, there is considerable geological evidence that our atmosphere has always contained oxygen.

William Hagan Jr. of the NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training for the Study of Origins of Life explained,

"A fundamental issue of mutual concern is how a somewhat oxidized environment on the early Earth can be reconciled with the presumed requirement for reducing conditions in prebiotic organic synthesis."

"Without the hypothesized atmosphere [reducing] and medium for life's self-assembly, materialist assumptions stand without any basis in reality. We can find no evidence to support, only evidence to contradict, a gradual sequence of primeval events and conditions leading to the spontaneous generation of life and an exponentially growing number of copies." H.P. Yockey, in Journal of Theoretical Biology

Back to our buddy Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box,

"In fact, none of the papers published in JME (Journal of Molecular Evolution) over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biological system might have been produced in a gradual step-by-step Darwinian fashion."

An objection raised in the journal Science by S.A. Benner (professor of Chemistry at the University of Florida)

"Prebiotic chemistry would produce a wealth of biochemicals from non living precursors. But the wealth soon became overwhelming, with the "prebiotic soups" having the chemical complexity of asphalt (useful, perhaps, for paving roads but not particularly promising as a wellspring for life.) Classical prebiotic chemistry not only failed to constrain the contents of the prebiotic soup, but also raised a new paradox. How could life (or any organized chemical process) emerge from such a mess? Searches of quadrillions of randomly generated RNA sequences have failed to yield a spontaneous RNA replicator."

Then we come to sunlight, which is also a major obstacle. Ultraviolet rays are stopped by the ozone layer, but without oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone layer. Hence a contradiction to the primordial soup theory. You cannot have oxygen in the atmosphere because it attacks amino acids. Yet it is necessary for the ozone layer, which protects the amino acids from destructive ultraviolet rays.

It seems that life spontaneously forming 4 billion years ago is not such a simple proposition. These obstacles to the formation of life on the early Earth have led to wider acceptance in the scientific community of more extreme theories, including life originating elsewhere in the Universe.

Or maybe it got a hand...

You mean like how the universe started from nothing?




It's not so much the soul itself that is affecting them as much as it is the lack of interest in it. If you don't believe in it then you don't care where it ends up.




So you are saying that someone guided this process? Intelligent design so to speak?

the universe starting from nothing is more logical than a god, infinitley more complex, starting from nothing. and how does that indicate intellegent design? that is the steps that are beleived to have took place for advanced organic molecules and simple cells to form. everything follows laws, except "god", he just does, and those are the laws followed in the formation of life. you can critisize evolution all you want just because we have not found all the pieces yet, but they are building. while creationism has no pieces just assumptions and beleifs.

Ok, let's take a look at how "simple" it would be for an amino acid, let alone a protein or RNA, to form independent of the controlled conditions of a laboratory.

Stanley Miller pioneered this field, and he said:

"Arguments concerining the composition of the primitive atmosphere are particularly controversal. It is important, therefore, to state our own prejudice clearly. We believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions."

There is no known evidence that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere. On the contrary, there is considerable geological evidence that our atmosphere has always contained oxygen.

William Hagan Jr. of the NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training for the Study of Origins of Life explained,

"A fundamental issue of mutual concern is how a somewhat oxidized environment on the early Earth can be reconciled with the presumed requirement for reducing conditions in prebiotic organic synthesis."

"Without the hypothesized atmosphere [reducing] and medium for life's self-assembly, materialist assumptions stand without any basis in reality. We can find no evidence to support, only evidence to contradict, a gradual sequence of primeval events and conditions leading to the spontaneous generation of life and an exponentially growing number of copies." H.P. Yockey, in Journal of Theoretical Biology

Back to our buddy Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box,

"In fact, none of the papers published in JME (Journal of Molecular Evolution) over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biological system might have been produced in a gradual step-by-step Darwinian fashion."

An objection raised in the journal Science by S.A. Benner (professor of Chemistry at the University of Florida)

"Prebiotic chemistry would produce a wealth of biochemicals from non living precursors. But the wealth soon became overwhelming, with the "prebiotic soups" having the chemical complexity of asphalt (useful, perhaps, for paving roads but not particularly promising as a wellspring for life.) Classical prebiotic chemistry not only failed to constrain the contents of the prebiotic soup, but also raised a new paradox. How could life (or any organized chemical process) emerge from such a mess? Searches of quadrillions of randomly generated RNA sequences have failed to yield a spontaneous RNA replicator."

Then we come to sunlight, which is also a major obstacle. Ultraviolet rays are stopped by the ozone layer, but without oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone layer. Hence a contradiction to the primordial soup theory. You cannot have oxygen in the atmosphere because it attacks amino acids. Yet it is necessary for the ozone layer, which protects the amino acids from destructive ultraviolet rays.

It seems that life spontaneously forming 4 billion years ago is not such a simple proposition. These obstacles to the formation of life on the early Earth have led to wider acceptance in the scientific community of more extreme theories, including life originating elsewhere in the Universe.

Or maybe it got a hand...

thats a nice argument, very niceley copied and pasted, jk.

according to my professor early earth had no o2. and if you think about it why would it? most other planets in our system have very little o2 and mostly co2. its only on our living planet that their is an abundance of o2. why? because early bacteria known as cyanobacteria developed the capacity to make o2, much in the way plants do, from co2 and sun light. which eventually allowed for the formation of higher organisms. there always was o2 but it was locked up in co2 and therefore harmless to ammino acids yet the carbon in co2 was beneficial to amminos.

and as far as the radiation goes from no ozone, maybe life formed in a cave or ocean. life forming at the hot vents at the bottom of the sea is also a probable explanation. while radiation was also necessary for mutations to develop in theese ammino acids aiding the formation of rna.
then theres like u ssaid life from somewhere else in the galaxy came to earth by comet or asteroid. we really cant say for sure but in several expirements replicating the earths early atmosphere they have somewhat easily formed ammino acids. so it would be yet more probable on a global level.

the universe starting from nothing is more logical than a god, infinitley more complex, starting from nothing.
Is it? Not to me.


and how does that indicate intellegent design?
They did it in a lab and directed the outcome. The experiment was either intelligent design or these guys got really, really lucky with no idea what they were doing.

that is the steps that are beleived to have took place for advanced organic molecules and simple cells to form

Believed is the key word here.

. everything follows laws, except "god", he just does, and those are the laws followed in the formation of life. you can critisize evolution all you want just because we have not found all the pieces yet, but they are building. while creationism has no pieces just assumptions and beleifs.

I'm not critisizing evolution. I didn't want to get into the whole evolution conversation. If you will read back you will notice I said I do believe that evolution takes place.

the experiment was a replication of the conditions of the early earth. they didnt do much. they mereley passed some organic matter through a collection of gasses that were present then. as well as electricity(lightning) and ammino acids were produced.

and as far as the radiation goes from no ozone, maybe life formed in a cave or ocean. life forming at the hot vents at the bottom of the sea is also a probable explanation...then theres like u ssaid life from somewhere else in the galaxy came to earth by comet or asteroid...

Do you see how you are making my point? As we find out how increasingly implausible the spontaneous formation of life is, the scientific community has become progressively more willing to accept such extreme theories, which they would have laughed at decades ago. Now, they seem to have no other alternative.

the experiment was a replication of the conditions of the early earth. they didnt do much. they mereley passed some organic matter through a collection of gasses that were present then. as well as electricity(lightning) and ammino acids were produced.

It was not a replication of the conditions of the early earth.

In order for this theory to be possible, it is assumed that there was a reducing atmosphere on the early Earth, composed largely of methane and ammonia.

There is no evidence which supports this assumption.

As you grow older, you will realize that not everything your professors taught you was accurate, they have their own bias.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
Albert Einstein

Do you see how you are making my point? As we find out how increasingly implausible the spontaneous formation of life is, the scientific community has become progressively more willing to accept such extreme theories, which they would have laughed at decades ago. Now, they seem to have no other alternative.

yes but you see religion is the same way. at first when evolution was proposed no christian would say it was true. but now as the evidence mounts against them until it is illogical to say evo doesnt occour many christians are admitting that it did occour. much like yourself. if you lived 30 years ago theres no way you would admit evo. was real. but in todays world you cant deny it without looking like an ignorant person. how long until evidence of life forming spontaneously overwhelms the religious community as well? will they make room for that too? you try to critisize the theory because we dont have all the info. about it. we do have evidence but not complete evidence. and that grings me back to hot vents. they spew aout methane. so the possibility that life formed there is possible as well. your a pretty smart guy and im having trouble arguing with you. lol. you know what ur talkin about. but i enjoy debating with someone who is not ignorant about science.

i enjoy debating with someone who is not ignorant about science.

:iagree:

With the evidence currently available, I believe a strong argument could be made either way.


It just so happens that we both feel much stronger about our respective position (hard to imagine).
:jump3:

yes but you see religion is the same way. at first when evolution was proposed no christian would say it was true. but now as the evidence mounts against them until it is illogical to say evo doesnt occour many christians are admitting that it did occour. much like yourself. if you lived 30 years ago theres no way you would admit evo. was real. but in todays world you cant deny it without looking like an ignorant person. how long until evidence of life forming spontaneously overwhelms the religious community as well? will they make room for that too? you try to critisize the theory because we dont have all the info. about it. we do have evidence but not complete evidence. and that grings me back to hot vents. they spew aout methane. so the possibility that life formed there is possible as well. your a pretty smart guy and im having trouble arguing with you. lol. you know what ur talkin about. but i enjoy debating with someone who is not ignorant about science.

It really depends on what kind of evolution you're talking about. There are 2 kinds, Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution is evolution within a species, where postive mutations become the norm in the species, such as birds w/ longer beaks survive because they can reach things (stupid example, but o well). Macroevolution is evolution from one species to another, and as to date there is no proof that this occurs, just some evidence with missing parts. Critisizing a theory is good, it makes people think about it and make sure that it makes sense. Also, when you look at Creation vs. Evolution, Christians (since it seems like thats what you mean by religion) have two main takes on it. There are young earth creationists, who believe the creation in Genesis is literal and the world was created in seven 24 hour days. The other side, which i tend to agree with, is old earth creation. This says that the account of Genesis is figurative, as the word "day" as it is used does not refer to a 24 hour day, but simply a passage of time. This means that God created the Universe over a much longer span. This allows for the idea of macroevolution, but does not agree with the Darwinian model of spontaneous evolution, becuase evolution would not be divinly guided. I, personally, do not believe that macroeolution occurs, but I aknowledge it as a possability. You always have to be open to the idea that what you believe is wrong, that's why it's faith.

*Edit* I realized I restated the micro/macro thing after i wrote this, since someone else already said it, but still figured you guys might find my input useful.

not neceserally proof that macro oocours just heavy evidence. i9f yuo agree that micro occours then you shouldnt limit that to macro occours cause it is the same concept just taken a little farther. could you elaborate on the missing parts cause there is no real evidence supporting that macro evolution does not occour. actually there is no micro or macro evolution its just the same thing. but creationists coined microevolution to give the theory leeway while not saying its completeley true.

not neceserally proof that macro oocours just heavy evidence. i9f yuo agree that micro occours then you shouldnt limit that to macro occours cause it is the same concept just taken a little farther. could you elaborate on the missing parts cause there is no real evidence supporting that macro evolution does not occour. actually there is no micro or macro evolution its just the same thing. but creationists coined microevolution to give the theory leeway while not saying its completeley true.

How heavy the evidence is depends on your intepretation. Sure some species are very close genetically, but there's a "missing link" between them that we havn't found or won't find. Admiting to adaptation within a species and admiting evolution to another species are very different. When an animal adapts, it is still the same species as it was before. In Macroevolution, a new species is created. I'll believe that it occurs when i see it. Like i said, I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying I don't think it happens. As for evidence that Macro-evolution doesn't occur, I cite the missing links between spceies that are supposed to have evolved from one another. I see the burden of truth as being on proving that it does, in the same way that the burden of proof lies on me to prove that God created the world. BTW, I don't know if your final statement is all that accurate. I would guess that it was a biologist, maybe Christian, maybe Atheist, who coined the term. Also, you shouldn't criticize Christians for adapting their worldview to agree with new data, thats what everyone, weither they are a atheist, deist, postmodernist, chistian theist, etc., does. If something is proven true, and you accept it, you have to adjust your worldview to include it, even if it means realizing you were wrong.

but missing links have been found. they have found many diffrent species of ape/human dating us back to apes. i saw this on the discovery channel i think the show was called ape to man or something. it showed the progression of apes all the way to modern humans. all backed by fossil evidence. how do you explain the existance of neanderthals, homo erectus, homo habilis? there are fossil remains of all these species. you dont seem to understand that micro and macroevolution are the exact same thing. adaptation is evolution.

the rules of evo are:
1. all members of a species are slightly genetically diffrent.
2. a species produces more offspring than the enviroment can sustain .
3. there is competition between species to survive.
4. the species that do survive will pass the traits that helped them on to their offspring.

all evo. is is when an animal is born with a trait that is diffrent and superior to the rest of its speceis(hence rule #1) and that animal can survive easier than its brothers. if this animal survives longer it will produce more offspring and all of those offsrping will have that same beneficial trait( hence rule 2 and 4). all the species that dont have the trait will be out competed and will die leaving only the new animals. and eventually out of the new breed this will occour again and they will gain yet another trait that is superior. this happens so many times that what you get in the end is so diffrent from what was in the beginning that it is considered a new species.

but missing links have been found. they have found many diffrent species of ape/human dating us back to apes. i saw this on the discovery channel i think the show was called ape to man or something. it showed the progression of apes all the way to modern humans. all backed by fossil evidence. how do you explain the existance of neanderthals, homo erectus, homo habilis? there are fossil remains of all these species. you dont seem to understand that micro and macroevolution are the exact same thing. adaptation is evolution.

the rules of evo are:
1. all members of a species are slightly genetically diffrent.
2. a species produces more offspring than the enviroment can sustain .
3. there is competition between species to survive.
4. the species that do survive will pass the traits that helped them on to their offspring.

all evo. is is when an animal is born with a trait that is diffrent and superior to the rest of its speceis(hence rule #1) and that animal can survive easier than its brothers. if this animal survives longer it will produce more offspring and all of those offsrping will have that same beneficial trait( hence rule 2 and 4). all the species that dont have the trait will be out competed and will die leaving only the new animals. and eventually out of the new breed this will occour again and they will gain yet another trait that is superior. this happens so many times that what you get in the end is so diffrent from what was in the beginning that it is considered a new species.

There have been ape fossils, and there have been human fossils. However, there is no ape/human or human/ape fossil to date. There is no upright walking ape or "stooped" human. The existance of other human species, I aknowledge their existance, theres no denying it, there are fossils. That doesn't really rule out creation, just means God created more than one species of man. I agree that adaptation is evolution, thats microevolution. I have a feeling we're never gonna get anywhere with this... what you're talking about with an animal developing a beneficial trait is creating a hybrid of a species, not a new species.

I wonder, though, do you believe in Darwinian evolution? Because like I said, I aknowledge the idea that God used evolution to create most of the species on earth as a possibility.

occams razor "the simplest explination is usually the correct one"

To me, creation seems simpler than the statistically improbable evolution to man from a single celled organism, just my thoughts tho...

ah but they have found fossil remains of a ape/human i saw them. i never said anything about a hybrid???? a hybrid is when two species interbreed and a new speceis is formed(kinda) but thats not what im talkin about. youre right this argument is going to go nowhere and we are only arguing things that have already been said. both creationists and evolutionists are very stubborn and we could fight all day. you dont seem to understand what i am trying to tell you so i will just leave it at that. cause i hate typing the same things over and over again.