Opening

I have never met a truly scientific person who did not at least admit to the existence of some form of intelligent designer. Atheist love to assume that scientific individuals are all also atheists, but this simply isn’t true. From my own personal experience, I have found a varying degree of theist belief amongst scientists. In fact many biology professors I have met who teach and believe in the evolutionary theory are devout Christians. Medical Doctors are required to have a complex understanding of biology and science, yet most that I know are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and even Hindu. Science proves that there is no reasonable possibility of life the universe, and existence happening by accident.

The term “God of Gaps” is thrown around a lot lately. It is used by atheists to ignore evidence of a creator being. It is dismissed as fallacy, yet they often use similar logic in their arguments against a creator, (if God exists why is their suffering in the world. etc.) Yet, by using this double standard they become as close minded as the fanatics they persecute.

You then have to understand that, if this being (who or whatever it may be) is so far above us that we will never be able to truly comprehend its existence. This makes it impossible for any religion to be 100% accurate, and if God ever did speak to man it would be in a dumbed down fashion. (Like explaining space time with a piece of cloth and some marbles.)

We can only understand what our brains are capable of understanding. Members of the ape family can use simple tools, but they are incapable of understanding fission. So to, (In our current evolutionary state) we may simply be incapable of understanding or fathoming anything about this intelligent designer. In fact, most will admit that there are a great many things in the universe that we are just incapable of understanding. To assume we are advanced enough to understand everything about the universe (or multiverse) is vain at best, and terribly depressing if true.

When choosing how to see and serve (or not serve) this intelligent designer purely depends on faith. Faith cannot be proven, neither can religious merit, but I am fairy sure that I can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer.

Part A

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:

Most people that prattle on about evolution do not even understand what it is. The old saying “Survival of the fittest” does not even begin to explain its complexities. It would be more appropriate to say that: members of a population who experience a beneficial genetic mutation or are blessed by specific breeding are better suited to their environment. These individuals experience better survival, and breeding success, giving their alleles a foothold in the gene pool.

A common misconception about evolution is that the animals adapt to their environment. This is not true, Adaptation Evolution was proposed by Alfred Russel Wallace. Adaptation has been proven wrong, Darwin’s Decent with modification theory is the evolutionary theory accepted today.

It is also interesting to note that Darwin believed in God. In fact he (like many modern scientists) believed that Evolution proved the existence of an intelligent creator. Beneficial genetic mutations are far too rare, based on what we know by the fossil records something had to guide this change to come as far as we have. The chances of “random” mutations leading to modern life are mathematically so unlikely, as to be considered impossible by all but the most stubborn atheist zealots.

The last problem with evolution without intelligent design is complex organs, and systems. We can see this in insects. Insects have the same primitive nervous, and respitory systems for millions of years. Decent with modification usually affects the phenotype of the species through its morphology. Leaving advanced systems and organs unaffected. In Darwin’s own works he expressed this by talking about the eye.

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” (Darwin 1872)

Leaving us with the same extreme improbability as with evolution as a whole without Intelligent help.

Part B

Abiogenesis:

is the theory in which states” life can be created from inorganic molecules.” With the proper mix of chemicals, you can make amino acids. These amino acids combine into proteins combined with nucleic acids; stimulated by energy (light, electricity, and/or heat) you would make life. But there are a lot of problems with this theory.

A chemist by the name of Stanley Lloyd Miller did a “breakthrough” experiment were he combined several chemicals that he thought matched primeval earths make-up. Lo and behold he creates amino acids, the building blocks of Life! Only everything he did, and the outcome was wrong.
1.Miller used ammonia in his experiment, but the high levels of Ultra Violet light on primeval earth would have broken up the ammonia, so it would not have been found in large quantities.

2.He also left out O2. Now it is unclear if Miller thought that O2 wasn’t important. But he probably knew that O2 would prevent the creation of amino acids. O2 has been found through geological evidence to have existed in large quantities on primeval earth.

3.He produced both basic and non-basic amino acids. Basic amino acids are the building blocks of life. But the non-basic amino acids would have interfered with the creation of that life.

4.What Miller produced was in fact a poisonous concoction that would have prevented life from forming, and would be fatal to it.

5.I can all be summed up like this; many scientists have created amino acids through various chemical combinations. But none have been able to produce life starting with inorganic materials.

But let’s say, for arguments sake, that it works “in theory”. If life was created from a collection of amino acids, which formed complex proteins, which miraculously created the first prokaryote, then why did it only happen once? Amino acids and proteins may have been rare in primeval earth, but with life covering the planet the building blocks of life are everywhere. It should (in theory) happen all the time now, but it only happened once. We know it only happened once because modern phylogenetics has proven that all life is related at a genetic level. Not to mention the fact that abiogenesis is in direct conflict with the third law of cell theory. (See below)

So, like evolution, it seems that life can only happen (or is only likely to happen) with the aid of an intelligent designer.

Part C

Big Bang Theory:

says (in simplified terms) that it all started with an extremely hot, dense ball of mater, (quark-gluon plasma) which exploded/expanded outwards. The galaxies are relatively proportional to each other, in waves emanating from the middle of the universe. The galaxies farther out are the fastest, while those closer in move slower. The farthest galaxies that we can see are moving faster. (At the initiation of the big bang it seems some galaxies moved faster than the speed of light. Something thought to be impossible by Einstein’s “theory of relativity”.) So here’s the problem.

The proportional way in which, the galaxies are spreading out break the second law of thermal dynamics. (See below) While the original mass breaks the first law of thermodynamics. (See below)

It may be hard for some people to imagine a being who always was, but the Idea of mater and energy being created out of nothing is a scientific impossibility.

Closing

As one final note:

the existence of the universe as we know it and all life depends on the perimeters, and values of the universe. (Protons, expansion rate, total mass.) With even the slightest of deviation, existence becomes impossible.

Now many have argued that we exist, the universe formed in this perfection, and improbable things happen. But atheists have never accepted this kind of self evident explanations from Theists. So to should the same kind of scrutiny be true of atheists arguments. The sheer impossibility of chance should prove to a rational mind that there was an intelligent designer behind creation. When the improbability of the universe being created, the existence of mass and energy, the universe being able to sustain life, life having been created from non-life, and the various complexities of our evolution are stacked up, the likelihood of an intelligent designer becomes clear.

Above all else, remember this; as soon as you say that something is impossible (whether it be the existence of God or the possibility of faster than light travel) you lose your objectivity and credibility as a scientist, and become a zealot.

If you take away belief systems and look at the bigger picture, God and science co-exist perfectly. Once you see that science proves the existence of an intelligent designer, then why argue with people who put a storyline behind it?

P.S. I am looking for a serious scientific debate.

Cell Theory:
1. All living things are composed of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the most basic unit of life.
3. All Cells come from pre existing cells.
First two laws of thermodynamics:
1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms
2. The release of energy creates entropy in the universe.

when you look into the universe and see the structures magnetic fields create at large and small fractal resolutions. When you see the perspectives in reality and how they shape our every thought and action. Then and only then shall you understand god.

In an infinite universe the perfect conditions always happen somewhere.




[edit on 1-6-2009 by Wertdagf]

Again, though, I personally don’t have any immediate need to understand the origin of the universe to this level. It seems to me that something like that might be useful in non-standard space travel, but we are not quite there yet.
So, yes, you make some valid points, but all I get from your points is that we don’t yet know it all and we should keep our minds open to possibilities. Life is statistically very likely in the universe and getting more and more probably all the time as we start to discover more and more extremophiles.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Why are there so many multiple threads on the same topic in this forum?]

Because differences between various views of creationism are subtle. For you it may sounds like the same nonsense, because you perhaps lack the interest. Or you are prejudice, like so many evolutionists are.

The truth is that there is no widely accepted viewpoint on creationism and finding information that goes beyond the dogma of religion is hard. So we are not all brainwashed like evolutionuts and relinuts, and are still capable of thinking for ourselves. So different viewpoints with different angles arise on the same subject. Something that should be recommended instead of suppressed.

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
You obviously did not read the post.

I read the post.

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!!!

I am fairy sure that I can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer.

You are a creationist.