It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harder To Believe In - God or Aliens?

page: 49
6
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by nappyhead
There is several different equations produced by several scientists (specifically Jobe Martin P.h.D) that calculated that the chance there is intelligent or sentient life anywhere else in the universe is 10^40,000.
...
Another equation by a different scientist calculated that the chance of sentient life elsewhere is basically equivelant to a random tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a completely flawless F-14 that works perfectly.
...
And still another scientist calculated that the chance of intelligent life elsewhere is like filling up our solar system with pennies and marking one of the pennies with a marker and then mixing it in and then being able to randomly pick the marked penny out the FIRST TIME.


Funny how they don't agree on the magnitude, but they somehow agree on the conclusion. Each of your anonymous scientists is calculating the odds of a fully formed human spontaneously assembling from raw materials. Of course the odds of that would be unfathomably small, but that isn't the proposed mechanism for the origin of life.

The proposed mechanism is that a molecule that acts as its own catalyst spontaneously formed, or similar variations on that theme. Once you have a molecule that reproduces itself, there's nothing to stop the positive feedback loop. Such molecules have been formed in a lab environment believed to be representative of prebiotic earth. The odds of it happening spontaneously have been calculated at about 1 in a trillion for a given experiment. However, prebiotic earth was a vast never ending lab for this experiment. The odds of protolife forming in such an environment have been calculated to be astronomically high.

What we don't know, is how probable the right conditions are, or what the odds are that such protolife would evolve into a sentient being. Anyone who claims to know those odds is lying.


Originally posted by nappyhead
As we debate this let's keep in mind that the DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION. It is the belief in eternal matter and energy.


Darwinian theory, and the more modern spinoffs, say nothing at all about whether matter and energy are eternal. How can you claim it's a religion when you demonstrate such a high degree of cluelessness as to what domains evolutionary theory even addresses?

Evolutionary theory is NOT a single theory. It is a collection of theories, each of which has been observed directly. Note that neither abiogenesis nor cosmology are part of evolutionary theory.


All three equations come to 10^40,000, the second two are just examples used by the professors.

The three equations ARE NOT calculating what the chance of a fully formed sentient life form being created from scratch would be. The equations take into account the process of evolution, the proper alignment of brain neurons, and hundreds of other things.

The two biggest gaps in ATHEISTIC evolution is what happened before the Big Bang and what happened to cause a molecule to eventually transform into a primitive cell.

If there is no paraphysical creator/essence then matter and energy can't exist -- its as simple as that. All physical things stem from other physical things, so the only logical way to be an atheistic evolutionist (I understand that some are theistic evolutionists) is to believe in eternal matter and energy (which is scientifically impossible, but none-the-less).

Even the most primitive cell has, quite literally, billions of characteristics and processes that have to be exactly right from the beginning, and immediately in effect or the cell will die. It is impossible to transistion to this, it has to be made as it is or it will become disorderly and die.

The most promising evolutionary experiment was one in which one of the simplest amino acids was created: which still proves nothing, but the ability to create a complex molecule. A cell, even the most simple and primitive cell, is an exponentially more complicated system than even the most complex amino acid.

Notice I said the "Darwininian Theory of Evolution," which is the basis for most of the other theories.




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   


Improbable, yes...Impossible, no.


No,it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE.

Number of superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
Number of galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Number of large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
Number of dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 3.5 trillion
Number of stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion


No one with a bit of common sense will believe we are the only living creatures in this universe. just look at the figures.


As we debate this let's keep in mind that the DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION. It is the belief in eternal matter and energy. You either believe in a para-physical all-powerful being who isn't constrained by the laws of the physical universe (therefore is eternal and not bound by the physical laws of fluctuation and decline) who created everything or you believe in eternal matter and energy (which by the way goes against one of the fundamental FACTUAL laws of science, which is that matter and energy cannot be eternal and both are subject to constant decline and disorder). Which of the two seems more logical to you?

By the way, there is actual HARD EVIDENCE that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old AND LOTS OF IT. But that's a whole nother story.

Oh... and another thing... evolution is based on transition, which is funny because THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL LIFE FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!


Evolution is not a religion,it is a scientific theory,based on long term studies on nature,and that has tons of evidence to back it up.

Why do you get the flu every year ? because the virus evolves and isn't identified by the defensive system.

Why is each specie perfectly adapted to the ecosystem it lives in?

there are transitionnal forms,but evolution happens over millions of years,you don't notice a huge difference in each generation


Oh by the way,there is absolutely no evidence to a 6000 year old earth...what else? do you also believe the earth is flat?


Bravo! Bravo!


Thanks!


Not impossible but let's say you're right.
Who cares about religion, the original question is about God. So the question should be which is easier to believe;


that billions, maybe trillions of beings can just randomly come into exsistence or;
that we're all alone in this huge universe or;
that we're not alone but all beings are still part of intellectual design?


Even if the universe were a trillion times bigger then it is now other sentient life is still improbable. Something is considered virtually impossible when the chance reaches 10^324.... but the equation is now at 10^40,000.


you are accusing us of pretending to see all of the universe,but you are pretending to know everything with a few equations...


If evolution is real then you have to deal with the improbable chance of sentient life forming. If God is real then life exists at his discretion and the statistics don't matter


we are finding exo-planets all over the place and not far from Sol,so planets are definitaly a very common thing in this universe.Therefore the chances of alien life existing are very high.
God is a fantasm created by men to explain what they couldn't understand. But now,in 2005, Science can explain lots of stuff and thats why there are less and less people believing in archaic fairy tales.


Another equation by a different scientist calculated that the chance of sentient life elsewhere is basically equivelant to a random tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a completely flawless F-14 that works perfectly.

And still another scientist calculated that the chance of intelligent life elsewhere is like filling up our solar system with pennies and marking one of the pennies with a marker and then mixing it in and then being able to randomly pick the marked penny out the FIRST TIME


scientists don't know everything.


We see God's existence everywhere in the beauty of creation and the intricate designs


No, I see nature, I see the Universe. I never saw God.


[edit on 1-6-2005 by DarkSide]

[edit on 1-6-2005 by DarkSide]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead
All three equations come to 10^40,000, the second two are just examples used by the professors.

The three equations ARE NOT calculating what the chance of a fully formed sentient life form being created from scratch would be. The equations take into account the process of evolution, the proper alignment of brain neurons, and hundreds of other things.


My BS meter just went off the scale. References please.


Originally posted by nappyhead
The two biggest gaps in ATHEISTIC evolution is what happened before the Big Bang and what happened to cause a molecule to eventually transform into a primitive cell.


These are not gaps in evolution, as they are not addressed by evolutionary theory. FYI, there are plenty of people who believe in god and also accept the evidence of evolution. They are only incompatible to creation "scientists".


Originally posted by nappyhead
If there is no paraphysical creator/essence then matter and energy can't exist -- its as simple as that.


...and if there's no para-paraphysical creator/essence then a paraphysical creator/essence can't exist -- it's as simple as that; ...and if there's no para-para-paraphysical...para-para-para-para-...


Originally posted by nappyhead
All physical things stem from other physical things, so the only logical way to be an atheistic evolutionist (I understand that some are theistic evolutionists) is to believe in eternal matter and energy (which is scientifically impossible, but none-the-less).


Is it your contention that the universe has not existed for all time?

By the way, why do you keep calling it atheistic evolution? Evolutionary theory is neutral with regard to the existence of deities. Is it your contention that anyone who's religious beliefs are different from yours is an atheist?


Originally posted by nappyhead
Even the most primitive cell has, quite literally, billions of characteristics and processes that have to be exactly right from the beginning, and immediately in effect or the cell will die. It is impossible to transistion to this, it has to be made as it is or it will become disorderly and die.


Irreducible complexity has already been demonstrated to be bunk Talkorigins. In the case of a cell, you can have a few errors and it will still function.

There are even more primitive forms of life than cells that are noncellular - viruses. Below those, there are prions, which are non-nucleic life forms. Prions are only a step away from the prebiotic molecules I referenced before.


Originally posted by nappyhead
The most promising evolutionary experiment was one in which one of the simplest amino acids was created: which still proves nothing, but the ability to create a complex molecule. A cell, even the most simple and primitive cell, is an exponentially more complicated system than even the most complex amino acid.


You're right that a cell is vastly more intricate than an amino acid.

But, you failed to mention that when the experiment was done, the self reproducing molecules were observed to begin evolving immediately and at a rapid pace. Snippets of RNA have also been observed to replicate outside a cell.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   


...and if there's no para-paraphysical creator/essence then a paraphysical creator/essence can't exist -- it's as simple as that; ...and if there's no para-para-paraphysical...para-para-para-para-...


hilarious



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide


Improbable, yes...Impossible, no.


No,it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE.

Number of superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
Number of galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Number of large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
Number of dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 3.5 trillion
Number of stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion


No one with a bit of common sense will believe we are the only living creatures in this universe. just look at the figures.


As we debate this let's keep in mind that the DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION. It is the belief in eternal matter and energy. You either believe in a para-physical all-powerful being who isn't constrained by the laws of the physical universe (therefore is eternal and not bound by the physical laws of fluctuation and decline) who created everything or you believe in eternal matter and energy (which by the way goes against one of the fundamental FACTUAL laws of science, which is that matter and energy cannot be eternal and both are subject to constant decline and disorder). Which of the two seems more logical to you?

By the way, there is actual HARD EVIDENCE that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old AND LOTS OF IT. But that's a whole nother story.

Oh... and another thing... evolution is based on transition, which is funny because THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL LIFE FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!


Evolution is not a religion,it is a scientific theory,based on long term studies on nature,and that has tons of evidence to back it up.

Why do you get the flu every year ? because the virus evolves and isn't identified by the defensive system.

Why is each specie perfectly adapted to the ecosystem it lives in?

there are transitionnal forms,but evolution happens over millions of years,you don't notice a huge difference in each generation


Oh by the way,there is absolutely no evidence to a 6000 year old earth...what else? do you also believe the earth is flat?


Bravo! Bravo!


Thanks!


Not impossible but let's say you're right.
Who cares about religion, the original question is about God. So the question should be which is easier to believe;


that billions, maybe trillions of beings can just randomly come into exsistence or;
that we're all alone in this huge universe or;
that we're not alone but all beings are still part of intellectual design?


Even if the universe were a trillion times bigger then it is now other sentient life is still improbable. Something is considered virtually impossible when the chance reaches 10^324.... but the equation is now at 10^40,000.


you are accusing us of pretending to see all of the universe,but you are pretending to know everything with a few equations...


If evolution is real then you have to deal with the improbable chance of sentient life forming. If God is real then life exists at his discretion and the statistics don't matter


we are finding exo-planets all over the place and not far from Sol,so planets are definitaly a very common thing in this universe.Therefore the chances of alien life existing are very high.
God is a fantasm created by men to explain what they couldn't understand. But now,in 2005, Science can explain lots of stuff and thats why there are less and less people believing in archaic fairy tales.


Another equation by a different scientist calculated that the chance of sentient life elsewhere is basically equivelant to a random tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a completely flawless F-14 that works perfectly.

And still another scientist calculated that the chance of intelligent life elsewhere is like filling up our solar system with pennies and marking one of the pennies with a marker and then mixing it in and then being able to randomly pick the marked penny out the FIRST TIME


scientists don't know everything.


We see God's existence everywhere in the beauty of creation and the intricate designs


No, I see nature, I see the Universe. I never saw God.


[edit on 1-6-2005 by DarkSide]

[edit on 1-6-2005 by DarkSide]


I'm going to point-counter-point this in order from top to bottom.

The fact that there is 30 billion trillion stars doesn't mean anything, you can cite that statistic, but it doesn't prove that there is life simply because there is that many stars. We don't even know what proportion of stars have planets, much less planets that are the right size and distance from a star to develop even the simplest life form. It could be one out of every billion stars for all we know. And forget about all the other things: correct lead and mercury quantites, correct star type, etc... (there are hundreds more).

Sorry, I should clarify myself... atheistic evolution in specific is a religion.
Tons of evidence? Where are all the billions of transitional life forms in the world today or in the fossil records that are required to justify the simplest explanation of evolution.

Mutation and transition from one species to another is totally different.

Each species is perfectly adapted to its environment because God made them that way.

THERE ARE 30 DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARTH IS NO OLDER THAN 10,000 years. Refer to the book "The Evolution of a Creationist" for more information and references. I'll quote the book directly on Friday when my friend returns it to me.

"Therefore the chances of alien life existing are very high.
God is a fantasm created by men to explain what they couldn't understand. But now,in 2005, Science can explain lots of stuff and thats why there are less and less people believing in archaic fairy tales."

Every point you make here is incorrect. Show an experiment or a statistic that proves your first point. A fantasm? If God isn't real then what created the physical realm? Actually more and more are believing in God. Both Islam and Christianity are growing at unprecedented rates (it is even predicted that the majority of Chinese will be Christian within 30 years due to the rapid expansion of underground Churches). There has been a huge resurgence in Creationism science and literature in the last 20 years, which has caused atheism to decline and agnosticism and Christianity to grow rapidly. Christianity isn't growing fast in America however, but is growing rapidly in Asia and Africa.

"Scientists don't know everything." Great observation.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by nappyhead
All three equations come to 10^40,000, the second two are just examples used by the professors.

The three equations ARE NOT calculating what the chance of a fully formed sentient life form being created from scratch would be. The equations take into account the process of evolution, the proper alignment of brain neurons, and hundreds of other things.


My BS meter just went off the scale. References please.


Originally posted by nappyhead
The two biggest gaps in ATHEISTIC evolution is what happened before the Big Bang and what happened to cause a molecule to eventually transform into a primitive cell.


These are not gaps in evolution, as they are not addressed by evolutionary theory. FYI, there are plenty of people who believe in god and also accept the evidence of evolution. They are only incompatible to creation "scientists".


Originally posted by nappyhead
If there is no paraphysical creator/essence then matter and energy can't exist -- its as simple as that.


...and if there's no para-paraphysical creator/essence then a paraphysical creator/essence can't exist -- it's as simple as that; ...and if there's no para-para-paraphysical...para-para-para-para-...


Originally posted by nappyhead
All physical things stem from other physical things, so the only logical way to be an atheistic evolutionist (I understand that some are theistic evolutionists) is to believe in eternal matter and energy (which is scientifically impossible, but none-the-less).


Is it your contention that the universe has not existed for all time?

By the way, why do you keep calling it atheistic evolution? Evolutionary theory is neutral with regard to the existence of deities. Is it your contention that anyone who's religious beliefs are different from yours is an atheist?


Originally posted by nappyhead
Even the most primitive cell has, quite literally, billions of characteristics and processes that have to be exactly right from the beginning, and immediately in effect or the cell will die. It is impossible to transistion to this, it has to be made as it is or it will become disorderly and die.


Irreducible complexity has already been demonstrated to be bunk Talkorigins. In the case of a cell, you can have a few errors and it will still function.

There are even more primitive forms of life than cells that are noncellular - viruses. Below those, there are prions, which are non-nucleic life forms. Prions are only a step away from the prebiotic molecules I referenced before.


Originally posted by nappyhead
The most promising evolutionary experiment was one in which one of the simplest amino acids was created: which still proves nothing, but the ability to create a complex molecule. A cell, even the most simple and primitive cell, is an exponentially more complicated system than even the most complex amino acid.


You're right that a cell is vastly more intricate than an amino acid.

But, you failed to mention that when the experiment was done, the self reproducing molecules were observed to begin evolving immediately and at a rapid pace. Snippets of RNA have also been observed to replicate outside a cell.


I'll point-counter-point this too, but i'll do it in order.

References: "The Evolution of a Creationist" by Jobe Martin, P.h.D. (this one is the best and cites the actual experiments)
"God Is" by Alan Hayward, P.h.D.

This is why I differentiated between "atheistic evolutionists" and "theistic evolutionists."

Physical things alone are subject to decline, decay, being finite, and fluctuating. If a paraphysical God exists then he is just that: paraphysical. He isn't bound by the laws of physics because he isn't physical and therefore doesn't have a source! He created physics, time, matter and space and isn't subject to his own creation such as the law of entropy.

Yes, I believe the physical universe was created about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

I apologize. I'm not trying to confuse evolution and atheistic evolution. If you are an evolutionist and believe in God then you are a theistic evolutionist. If you believe there is no supernatural, all-powerful entity, then you are an atheistic evolutionist.

You do realize though that a basic cell is vastly more complicated than a virus and that a virus, nor anything like it, has ever been created from molecules in an experiment don't you?

The self-reproducing molecules never "evolved" into anything close to a life form.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

I'm going to point-counter-point this in order from top to bottom.

The fact that there is 30 billion trillion stars doesn't mean anything, you can cite that statistic, but it doesn't prove that there is life simply because there is that many stars. We don't even know what proportion of stars have planets, much less planets that are the right size and distance from a star to develop even the simplest life form. It could be one out of every billion stars for all we know. And forget about all the other things: correct lead and mercury quantites, correct star type, etc... (there are hundreds more).


It is a bit close-minded and nonsensical to believe life only appeared on earth. All you need is water,amino-acids (organic matter) and light
.


Sorry, I should clarify myself... atheistic evolution in specific is a religion.
Tons of evidence? Where are all the billions of transitional life forms in the world today or in the fossil records that are required to justify the simplest explanation of evolution.

Mutation and transition from one species to another is totally different.


There are no transitionnal life forms.They became what we see today. Why are there no transitionnal forms?

Why doesn't Homo habilis exist anymore? because they evolved over time into Homo ergaster (and later on Homo sapiens) and Homo georgicus...

At each generation,the species changed a bit and after a certain period the changes were sufficient to be classed as Homo ergaster. The species Homo habilis didn't split into 2 species (habilis and ergaster) = it became Homo ergaster.


Each species is perfectly adapted to its environment because God made them that way.


God doesn't exist.


THERE ARE 30 DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARTH IS NO OLDER THAN 10,000 years. Refer to the book "The Evolution of a Creationist" for more information and references. I'll quote the book directly on Friday when my friend returns it to me.


Great, a book from a christian fanatic that explains how the universe is 6 000 years old....

This is the age of the universe = www.astro.ucla.edu...


"Therefore the chances of alien life existing are very high.
God is a fantasm created by men to explain what they couldn't understand. But now,in 2005, Science can explain lots of stuff and thats why there are less and less people believing in archaic fairy tales."

Every point you make here is incorrect. Show an experiment or a statistic that proves your first point. A fantasm? If God isn't real then what created the physical realm? Actually more and more are believing in God. Both Islam and Christianity are growing at unprecedented rates (it is even predicted that the majority of Chinese will be Christian within 30 years due to the rapid expansion of underground Churches). There has been a huge resurgence in Creationism science and literature in the last 20 years, which has caused atheism to decline and agnosticism and Christianity to grow rapidly. Christianity isn't growing fast in America however, but is growing rapidly in Asia and Africa.


Read about the string theory or something. I can ask you the same question. If God created the universe who created God?



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide

I'm going to point-counter-point this in order from top to bottom.

The fact that there is 30 billion trillion stars doesn't mean anything, you can cite that statistic, but it doesn't prove that there is life simply because there is that many stars. We don't even know what proportion of stars have planets, much less planets that are the right size and distance from a star to develop even the simplest life form. It could be one out of every billion stars for all we know. And forget about all the other things: correct lead and mercury quantites, correct star type, etc... (there are hundreds more).


It is a bit close-minded and nonsensical to believe life only appeared on earth. All you need is water,amino-acids (organic matter) and light
.


Sorry, I should clarify myself... atheistic evolution in specific is a religion.
Tons of evidence? Where are all the billions of transitional life forms in the world today or in the fossil records that are required to justify the simplest explanation of evolution.

Mutation and transition from one species to another is totally different.


There are no transitionnal life forms.They became what we see today. Why are there no transitionnal forms?

Why doesn't Homo habilis exist anymore? because they evolved over time into Homo ergaster (and later on Homo sapiens) and Homo georgicus...

At each generation,the species changed a bit and after a certain period the changes were sufficient to be classed as Homo ergaster. The species Homo habilis didn't split into 2 species (habilis and ergaster) = it became Homo ergaster.


Each species is perfectly adapted to its environment because God made them that way.


God doesn't exist.


THERE ARE 30 DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARTH IS NO OLDER THAN 10,000 years. Refer to the book "The Evolution of a Creationist" for more information and references. I'll quote the book directly on Friday when my friend returns it to me.


Great, a book from a christian fanatic that explains how the universe is 6 000 years old....

This is the age of the universe = www.astro.ucla.edu...


"Therefore the chances of alien life existing are very high.
God is a fantasm created by men to explain what they couldn't understand. But now,in 2005, Science can explain lots of stuff and thats why there are less and less people believing in archaic fairy tales."

Every point you make here is incorrect. Show an experiment or a statistic that proves your first point. A fantasm? If God isn't real then what created the physical realm? Actually more and more are believing in God. Both Islam and Christianity are growing at unprecedented rates (it is even predicted that the majority of Chinese will be Christian within 30 years due to the rapid expansion of underground Churches). There has been a huge resurgence in Creationism science and literature in the last 20 years, which has caused atheism to decline and agnosticism and Christianity to grow rapidly. Christianity isn't growing fast in America however, but is growing rapidly in Asia and Africa.


Read about the string theory or something. I can ask you the same question. If God created the universe who created God?


I will rebuttal this in order...

Firstly, you assume that evolution is true. If creationism is true then it doesn't matter how big the universe is: life forms don't become different life forms and God decides where they are.

"All you need is water, amino-acids, and light..."

You can't be serious -- please cite a statistic, article, or anything (i'd love to see a report from an experiment) that proves what you're saying is true. Scientists have never seen the three ingredients you quote above become life nor ANYTHING even close to the complexity of the simplest of unicellular life forms.

You have an interesting theory about the missing transitional life forms, but it doesn't make logical sense. When you compare the most closely related life form's genomes up against each other it would take thousands, millions, even billions of DIFFFERENT species in between to have evolved to get to where they are now. That means that if evolution were true then it would take millions of times more different species of creatures than there are in the fossil records and that are alive today? Where are they?

What about the fact that scientists find fossilized creatures all the time that are carbon-dated to be hundreds of millions of years old, but are the exact same creature we have today: hundreds of different species of bugs, sharks, etc... these creatures haven't changed in any way at all, though the "accurate" method of carbon dating says they are HUNDREDS of millions of years old.

Did you know that it is easily verifiable that the dimensions of Noah's ark could EASILY hold every species of creature that lived on land or flew in the sky with PLENTY of room to spare? This even includes insects and infant dinosaurs and sufficient feed.

If a world-wide flood were to happen what would you expect to find? Fossilized creatures every where (especially sea creatures) on the tops of every tall mountain, even Mount Everest and sea sediment on every mountain. Guess what? This is true! There are fossilized sea-creatures on all of the tallest mountains, especially Mount Everest!

Did you know that there are several fossilized imprints of an Allosaurus foot print in Europe and Texas with human foot prints in the same sedimentary layer! Do you know what that means? Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time!

There are hundreds upon hundreds of more subsequent facts.

God doesn't exist? And you can prove this... how? Are you a sorceror or something?

"If God created the universe who created God?"

I've already explained this. God is a spiritual or paraphysical essence and is therefore not bound by the laws of physics or the physical universe. Time, matter, energy, and space are all aspects of the physical universe, but God is not physical! He created time, matter, energy, and space! The laws of science, physics, or the law of entropy do not transcend into the paraphysical realm.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by nappyhead]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Not to be trite nappy, but I'm finding your posting style difficult to read. You can quote and endquote multiple times to make it easier to follow.


Originally posted by nappyhead
References: "The Evolution of a Creationist" by Jobe Martin, P.h.D. (this one is the best and cites the actual experiments)
"God Is" by Alan Hayward, P.h.D.


Wow! Looking into this book, I discovered that the publisher is about 7 miles from my house. Small world (but I wouldn't want to paint it).

Here's the applicable quote from that book (I presume this is the one since you provided no page number):

Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker of the Institute for
Creation Research have recorded the probability of the
chance origin of life in their revised book, What is Creation
Science? (pp. 269-276). If the entire universe were crammed
with electrons (electron particles), the maximum number of
these little particles would be ten to the power of 130. If each
particle could do one hundred billion-billion events (steps in
ever onward and upward evolution) every second for 3,000
billion years (100 times older than anyone says the universe
is), then in the span of history of the universe, ten to the 170th
power events could possibly happen. But to get a series of
even 1,500 events to happen in order (and without God’s
help), events that might be moving from non-living chemicals
to a living cell, there is only one chance in ten to the power of
450!


What the heck are these 1500 events that have to happen in order? It's the odds of a complete protien forming spontaneously.

To arrive at the 10^40,000 number, the assumption includes the spontaneous assembly of the entire DNA of a human. That's exactly what I told you before and you denied that was how this absurd number is arrived at.

This is an outrageous strawman argument. No-one but creationists posit that's how it happened. Self replicating amino acids are, for all practical purposes, infinitely more likely. The question then is can these self replicating proto-protiens evolve into RNA, and can that subsequently somehow evolve into a cell with a nucleus containing DNA? Those are the calculations your dentist friend (Dr. Jobe Martin) should be investigating.


Originally posted by nappyhead
This is why I differentiated between "atheistic evolutionists" and "theistic evolutionists."


Ok, as long as we agree the theories themselves are neutral regarding deities per se.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Physical things alone are subject to decline, decay, being finite, and fluctuating. If a paraphysical God exists then he is just that: paraphysical. He isn't bound by the laws of physics because he isn't physical and therefore doesn't have a source! He created physics, time, matter and space and isn't subject to his own creation such as the law of entropy.


I don't know what all your assumptions are, but current theory states the universe is no more than ~15 billion years or so old. Not even naturalists think it is infinitely old. But that doesn't mean it was created. Nor does it mean that in the event it's existence is attributable to something else, that that something else is even sentient, let alone the Bible god.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Yes, I believe the physical universe was created about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.


That wasn't the question. The question was, has the universe existed for all time? Time is an aspect of the universe itself. To speek of "before the universe" implies that time is transcendental. But we already know from relativity that time is influenced by space and gravity (matter), so if time is transcendental so are these. In other words, if time is transcendental, so is the rest of the universe!


Originally posted by nappyhead
You do realize though that a basic cell is vastly more complicated than a virus and that a virus, nor anything like it, has ever been created from molecules in an experiment don't you?


Yes, and you do realize that isn't the proposed mechanism by which viruses formed don't you?


Originally posted by nappyhead
The self-reproducing molecules never "evolved" into anything close to a life form.


That depends on what you consider to be a "life form". By some definitions, a self replicating molecule is a life form.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I'm sorry if i'm confusing anyone with the way i'm rebutting, but i'm not particularly good with computers... I think i have figured it out though
.





Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker of the Institute for
Creation Research have recorded the probability of the
chance origin of life in their revised book, What is Creation
Science? (pp. 269-276). If the entire universe were crammed
with electrons (electron particles), the maximum number of
these little particles would be ten to the power of 130. If each
particle could do one hundred billion-billion events (steps in
ever onward and upward evolution) every second for 3,000
billion years (100 times older than anyone says the universe
is), then in the span of history of the universe, ten to the 170th
power events could possibly happen. But to get a series of
even 1,500 events to happen in order (and without God’s
help), events that might be moving from non-living chemicals
to a living cell, there is only one chance in ten to the power of
450!


What the heck are these 1500 events that have to happen in order? It's the odds of a complete protien forming spontaneously.

To arrive at the 10^40,000 number, the assumption includes the spontaneous assembly of the entire DNA of a human. That's exactly what I told you before and you denied that was how this absurd number is arrived at.

This is an outrageous strawman argument. No-one but creationists posit that's how it happened. Self replicating amino acids are, for all practical purposes, infinitely more likely. The question then is can these self replicating proto-protiens evolve into RNA, and can that subsequently somehow evolve into a cell with a nucleus containing DNA? Those are the calculations your dentist friend (Dr. Jobe Martin) should be investigating.


That wasn't the correct citation, I apologize, my friend has my book, but here is a different citation from www.krishna.com... that arrives at the exact same number.

"Scientists have pointed out that there is some latitude for variation in the exact sequence of the 300 amino acid units without disrupting the protein's performance. Therefore Hoyle and Wickramasinghe generously adjusted the 20 to the power of 300 to 1 probability to 10 to the power of 20 to 1--a tremendous reduction in the odds. Then, since the simplest cell requires 2,000 different proteins to operate, they combined these two figures (10 to the power of 20 and 2,000) and arrived at a mathematical probability of 10 to the power of 40,000 to 1 that random interaction could provide the necessary molecules for constructing even the simplest self-reproducing system. These odds are so incredibly great that no one could reasonably expect such an event to occur in the relatively brief few billion years that scientists allow for the phenomenon. So much for pure chance."




Yes, and you do realize that isn't the proposed mechanism by which viruses formed don't you?


I didn't propose any means as to how a virus is formed. I said no experiment has ever created any true life form from molecules. If evolution were true then even viruses had to originally start from the molecular level, so i'm not sure where you are getting at.



I don't know what all your assumptions are, but current theory states the universe is no more than ~15 billion years or so old. Not even naturalists think it is infinitely old. But that doesn't mean it was created. Nor does it mean that in the event it's existence is attributable to something else, that that something else is even sentient, let alone the Bible god.


Some theorists say 20 billion, some say 12 billion, some say somewhere in between. There are atheistic evolutionists that either believe that the universe is constantly expanding and contracting (the last contraction was before the "big bang") or that the universe is stationary; either approach leads to the conclusion that matter and energy must be eternal (if you are to believe there is no God).

Since atheistic evolutionists (i'm not talking about theistic evolutionists) have to have some explanation for a universal origin many believe in eternal matter and energy, though this goes against some of the basic factual principles of physics and physical science. This leaves us with two conclusions: either theistic evolution or creationism.

Because we know that physical things, i.e. matter and energy, cannot be eternal we must concede that there is an all-encompassing, omnipotent, omniscient deity, essence, whatevever, that is paraphysical, eternal, and limitless in nature. As to what this "God" is, is up for debate. Yahweh, Allah, life-force, etc... I choose to believe in Yahweh (I Am who I Am), because I feel that there is enough evidence to support him as the one God: the Father, Son, and Spirit --- one deity.




That wasn't the question. The question was, has the universe existed for all time? Time is an aspect of the universe itself. To speek of "before the universe" implies that time is transcendental. But we already know from relativity that time is influenced by space and gravity (matter), so if time is transcendental so are these. In other words, if time is transcendental, so is the rest of the universe!


I never proposed or suggested that time is transcendental. I have, however, promoted the theory that God, who is a spiritual being, created time, matter, energy, and space to exist in this physical realm, which is our universe.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by nappyhead]

[edit on 2-6-2005 by nappyhead]

[edit on 2-6-2005 by nappyhead]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead

That wasn't the correct citation, I apologize, my friend has my book, but here is a different citation from www.krishna.com... that arrives at the exact same number.

"Scientists have pointed out that there is some latitude for variation in the exact sequence of the 300 amino acid units without disrupting the protein's performance. Therefore Hoyle and Wickramasinghe generously adjusted the 20 to the power of 300 to 1 probability to 10 to the power of 20 to 1--a tremendous reduction in the odds. Then, since the simplest cell requires 2,000 different proteins to operate, they combined these two figures ...


Look at the two fragments I highlighted. They are doing the exact same thing, only this time for a single celled organism. They are calculating the odds of a complete cell forming spontaneously. Read this carefully, no-one is proposing such an absurd mechanism other than creationists using it as a strawman argument.

Why do you refuse to examine the odds of a proto-protien forming? Then examine the odds that such a self-replicating molecule could mutate randomly, where there is a constant error function pushing it toward reproduction? This is the proposed mechanism. We already understand the odds of the first part, and they are astronomically high under the right conditions (another exercise for those so inclined to compute probabilities).


Originally posted by nappyhead
I didn't propose any means as to how a virus is formed. I said no experiment has ever created any true life form from molecules. If evolution were true then even viruses had to originally start from the molecular level, so i'm not sure where you are getting at.


Has an experiment created a life form? That depends on your definition of a "life form". Experiments have created self replicating molecules capable of mutation. I would think that's a minimum set of requirements for "life". I suspect you will set the bar at whatever level it needs to be to ensure that the definition is not met.

Creationists would not be convinced even if an experiment started from abiogenesis and turned into a sentient life form. Why? Because that isn't what the Bible says.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Some theorists say 20 billion, some say 12 billion, some say somewhere in between. There are atheistic evolutionists that either believe that the universe is constantly expanding and contracting (the last contraction was before the "big bang") or that the universe is stationary; either approach leads to the conclusion that matter and energy must be eternal (if you are to believe there is no God).


Don't confuse speculation with "belief". The hypothesis du jour is membrane theory. This theory does not involve matter and energy being eternal, but it does involve transcendental spacetime of sorts. However, "time" per se does not exist in that domain. It's a domain of pure mathematics with no intuitive insight. Is it right? Who knows? It's not even a fully formed hypothesis at this point.

However, although there is proof that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, there is no evidence that anything preceded the big bang. If you do the math, it is not possible to reach t=0 of the big bang, because time ceases to exist in the limit of the singularity. You can get arbitrarily close, but you can't reach t=0.

In that sense, the universe is eternal even though its age is bounded (assuming the big bang model is close).


Originally posted by nappyhead
Since atheistic evolutionists (i'm not talking about theistic evolutionists) have to have some explanation for a universal origin many believe in eternal matter and energy, though this goes against some of the basic factual principles of physics and physical science. This leaves us with two conclusions: either theistic evolution or creationism.


You're bifurcating now. You are neglecting an unbounded range of other possibilities. You can not even explain why either of these is possible in its own right, yet you have concluded these are the only two options.


Originally posted by nappyhead
I never proposed or suggested that time is transcendental. I have, however, promoted the theory that God, who is a spiritual being, created time, matter, energy, and space to exist in this physical realm, which is our universe.


I disagree. The language you are using, i.e. "created" implies several things. First, it implies that whatever was created did not exist prior to creation. But, you can not say such a thing consistently if time itself is part of the universe. If time is part of the universe, then "before the universe existed" implies "before time", which is a contradiction of terms.

Second, to imply something was created implies a location for it to be created within. This is the same problem as time, but now with space. Space is an aspect of the universe itself. To say it was created is to imply a location (space) in which space was placed. This is another contradiction.

Third, suppose you're right, and in some incomprehensible metaphysical sense a sentient being is responsible for the existence of the universe. You could never prove it. Why? Because we can only sense the natural, not the supernatural. From the natural perspective, the universe must logically appear self contained.

You are stuck with faith. All attempts to prove otherwise will fail as a result of this truism.

Paul instructed you to embrace faith. Why then do creation "scientists" insist on trying to prove the unprovable? If they succeeded, everyone would believe from the evidence, not from faith. That isn't the Biblical directive!

If you want to be Biblical, embrace faith and quit trying to prove it.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by nappyhead

That wasn't the correct citation, I apologize, my friend has my book, but here is a different citation from www.krishna.com... that arrives at the exact same number.

"Scientists have pointed out that there is some latitude for variation in the exact sequence of the 300 amino acid units without disrupting the protein's performance. Therefore Hoyle and Wickramasinghe generously adjusted the 20 to the power of 300 to 1 probability to 10 to the power of 20 to 1--a tremendous reduction in the odds. Then, since the simplest cell requires 2,000 different proteins to operate, they combined these two figures ...


Look at the two fragments I highlighted. They are doing the exact same thing, only this time for a single celled organism. They are calculating the odds of a complete cell forming spontaneously. Read this carefully, no-one is proposing such an absurd mechanism other than creationists using it as a strawman argument.

Why do you refuse to examine the odds of a proto-protien forming? Then examine the odds that such a self-replicating molecule could mutate randomly, where there is a constant error function pushing it toward reproduction? This is the proposed mechanism. We already understand the odds of the first part, and they are astronomically high under the right conditions (another exercise for those so inclined to compute probabilities).


"Therefore Hoyle and Wickramasinghe generously adjusted the 20 to the power of 300 to 1 probability to 10 to the power of 20 to 1--a tremendous reduction in the odds."



Originally posted by nappyhead
I didn't propose any means as to how a virus is formed. I said no experiment has ever created any true life form from molecules. If evolution were true then even viruses had to originally start from the molecular level, so i'm not sure where you are getting at.


Has an experiment created a life form? That depends on your definition of a "life form". Experiments have created self replicating molecules capable of mutation. I would think that's a minimum set of requirements for "life". I suspect you will set the bar at whatever level it needs to be to ensure that the definition is not met.

Creationists would not be convinced even if an experiment started from abiogenesis and turned into a sentient life form. Why? Because that isn't what the Bible says.


The one basic thing every "life-form" must have: nucleic acid.

I would be convinced if an experiment started from abiogenesis and turned into a sentient life-form... but don't count on that ever happening. Scientists can't even get a simple molecule to become anything nearly as complex as the simplest form of nucleic acid. And how can the nucleic acid support itself initially without the cell-housing.


However, although there is proof that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, there is no evidence that anything preceded the big bang. If you do the math, it is not possible to reach t=0 of the big bang, because time ceases to exist in the limit of the singularity. You can get arbitrarily close, but you can't reach t=0.


Just one more reason I believe in God... and the fact that IF the Universe could be contracted into one dense ball it is impossible for that dense ball to overcome its own gravitational forces without God telling it to.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Since atheistic evolutionists (i'm not talking about theistic evolutionists) have to have some explanation for a universal origin many believe in eternal matter and energy, though this goes against some of the basic factual principles of physics and physical science. This leaves us with two conclusions: either theistic evolution or creationism.


You're bifurcating now. You are neglecting an unbounded range of other possibilities. You can not even explain why either of these is possible in its own right, yet you have concluded these are the only two options.


Physical things are finite... period. THE ONLY POSSIBILITY is that SOMEONE or SOMETHING that is not under the laws of physics and physical restrictions started all that is. I'll leave it to you to decide what that SOMEONE or SOMETHING is, but that is basic logic. I've arrived at a belief in a Creator-God because I feel the physical and historical evidence is plenty sufficient.


I disagree. The language you are using, i.e. "created" implies several things. First, it implies that whatever was created did not exist prior to creation. But, you can not say such a thing consistently if time itself is part of the universe. If time is part of the universe, then "before the universe existed" implies "before time", which is a contradiction of terms.


So then perhaps the realm of God isn't absent of time, but rather unlimited by it (or time never ends).


Second, to imply something was created implies a location for it to be created within. This is the same problem as time, but now with space. Space is an aspect of the universe itself. To say it was created is to imply a location (space) in which space was placed. This is another contradiction.


This is explained very simply: the omnipotent Creator-God created a separate realm from his own in which time and space were aspects.


Third, suppose you're right, and in some incomprehensible metaphysical sense a sentient being is responsible for the existence of the universe. You could never prove it. Why? Because we can only sense the natural, not the supernatural. From the natural perspective, the universe must logically appear self contained.


Actually I can use just as much physical evidence to prove my case as you can to prove yours, except my theory doesn't have to overcome any improbabilities because my God can do anything; your case has to overcome millions of improbabilities (this is if you are taking an atheistic or theistic evolutionary point of view).

Want me to throw out real proof? I have tons of it... and i'm not talking about equations or statistics or even how evolution is inaccurate, but real proof.


You are stuck with faith. All attempts to prove otherwise will fail as a result of this truism.


Good point, but wrong. I know an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent essence exists because it is basic logic (though I know, or at least think, you disagree). Faith is what steps in to help me get to the conclusion that Yahweh (I Am who I Am) is that essence... and not Brahman, nor Samsara, nor Allah, nor a neutral life-force, nor anything, but the One true God: Yahweh.


Paul instructed you to embrace faith. Why then do creation "scientists" insist on trying to prove the unprovable? If they succeeded, everyone would believe from the evidence, not from faith. That isn't the Biblical directive!

If you want to be Biblical, embrace faith and quit trying to prove it.


Creation scientists insist on trying to prove the provable because "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few."

The Christ calmed a storm instantly before a group of his followers yet they still doubted. It doesn't matter how much proof there is to confirm or promote God... there will always be doubters, after all -- it's human nature.

[edit on 3-6-2005 by nappyhead]

[edit on 3-6-2005 by nappyhead]

[edit on 3-6-2005 by nappyhead]

[edit on 3-6-2005 by nappyhead]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead
Therefore Hoyle and Wickramasinghe generously adjusted the 20 to the power of 300 to 1 probability to 10 to the power of 20 to 1--a tremendous reduction in the odds. Then, since the simplest cell requires 2,000 different proteins to operate, they combined these two figures ...


You've got to be kidding. You focus in on their "generous adjustment" of their own absurd strawman? The technique they are using is totally absurdly stupidy obnoxiously invalid. Everyone who reads is it dumber as a result. They know it, you know it, and I know it. They could throw in 39,000 orders of magnitude and it would not be generous enough to change the fact that they are flat out lying by calculating the odds of a complete human DNA spontaneously forming from base atoms and then generallizing it to "We've calculated the odds of a sentient being forming blah blah fricken bald faced lying blah..."


Originally posted by nappyhead
The one basic thing every "life-form" must have: nucleic acid.


Like I said, you raise the bar to whatever level you know can not be achieved in the limited space and time frame of a lab.

If aliens landed who's basic make-up included some other mechanism beside nucleic acid, they would not be considered life forms according to your standard.


Originally posted by nappyhead
I would be convinced if an experiment started from abiogenesis and turned into a sentient life-form... but don't count on that ever happening.


Unless of course it already has.

You discount the evidence of it simply because it conflicts with your Biblical preconceptions. Just as you reject the evidence of the natural experiment you see before you, you would reject such a lab experiment because it wasn't natural. How do I know? Because creationists have already rejected the experiments involving self replicating molecules for that very reason.


Originally posted by nappyhead
And how can the nucleic acid support itself initially without the cell-housing.


Snippets of RNA have been demonstrated to self replicate outside the cellular environment. By the way, that's the second time I told you that. You only hear what you want to hear.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Just one more reason I believe in God... and the fact that IF the Universe could be contracted into one dense ball it is impossible for that dense ball to overcome its own gravitational forces without God telling it to.


You're merely assuming this to be true? Besides, doesn't the big bang model contradict the Biblical creation myth?


Originally posted by nappyhead
Physical things are finite... period. THE ONLY POSSIBILITY is that SOMEONE or SOMETHING that is not under the laws of physics and physical restrictions started all that is.


You keep saying that physical things are finite. That's true if you're talking about the specific ordering of energy into, say, and apple. But the energy itself is eternal as far as we can tell. That's what the law of conservation of energy is about. No-one has ever observed the creation nor destruction of energy. It changes forms, but the net quantity remains constant as far as we can tell (within uncertainty limits).

But, current theory does suggest a bound on the age of the universe as well as its size.

I don't think you fully appreciate that space and time are aspects of the universe itself. It is impossible for anything to have created the universe, because the word "create" implies there was a time when it did not exist. But if the universe does not exist, neither does time, so there can not be a time when it did not exist. The universe has always existed everywhere, even if the duration and expanse of that existence are bounded. This is not a simple concept to grasp, you really have to ponder it.


Originally posted by nappyhead
I'll leave it to you to decide what that SOMEONE or SOMETHING is, but that is basic logic. I've arrived at a belief in a Creator-God because I feel the physical and historical evidence is plenty sufficient.


The best position that fits all available evidence is neither of the options you've given. The evidence is that the universe has always existed.


Originally posted by nappyhead
So then perhaps the realm of God isn't absent of time, but rather unlimited by it (or time never ends).


That doesn't help. I've already explained that time is influenced by space and gravity (energy). If time is transcendental, then so must these be in order to influence it. In other words, if time is transcendental, then so is the rest of the universe. You end up right back at an eternal universe.

For your case to have any hope of making sense, you have to assume that god "exists" in a realm without space or time.


Originally posted by nappyhead
This is explained very simply: the omnipotent Creator-God created a separate realm from his own in which time and space were aspects.


I think it's hopeless. I don't know if you are incapable of grasping this, or are simply ignoring everything I write (probably the latter). The word "create" makes no sense unless time and space already exist.

"X created the universe" is meaningless word salad, regardless of whether that X is proposed to be god or something else.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Actually I can use just as much physical evidence to prove my case as you can to prove yours, except my theory doesn't have to overcome any improbabilities because my God can do anything; your case has to overcome millions of improbabilities (this is if you are taking an atheistic or theistic evolutionary point of view).


We are here. Since this is an experiment of "1" as far as we know, the probability of us being here is 100%. Your failure to properly assess probabilities doesn't change anything.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Want me to throw out real proof? I have tons of it... and i'm not talking about equations or statistics or even how evolution is inaccurate, but real proof.


Pick the one item of your "tons of proof" that makes the most compelling case in support of Biblical creation. But be carefull. It isn't sufficient to discredit evolution in order to prove Biblical creation. Other than being a deceiver, that's the biggest mistake Hovind makes. He foolishly thinks that discrediting evolution is the same as making a positive case for Biblical creation, without considering that there are numerous other possibilities.

By the way, if you are just trolling creation sites, odds are I've seen it before.

You will be expected to personally defend whatever you present. I don't want to waste more effort looking up vague references to strawmen, only to have the refutation totally ignored as if the conversation never happened.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Good point, but wrong. I know an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent essence exists because it is basic logic (though I know, or at least think, you disagree). Faith is what steps in to help me get to the conclusion that Yahweh (I Am who I Am) is that essence... and not Brahman, nor Samsara, nor Allah, nor a neutral life-force, nor anything, but the One true God: Yahweh.


Well you're right. I do disagree. I can think of no logic you can use to arrive at the existence of an omni^3 essence.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Creation scientists insist on trying to prove the provable because "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few."


The passage you paraphrased is motivation to evangelize the gospel. You're wasting your time on this silly creation "science" effort that convinces no-one except those who already believe, rather than directly evangelizing about being saved.

You are expending effort on the wrong group, and using false dichotomies, equivocation, strawmen, arguments from popularity and authority, and other logical fallacies in the process, while simultaneously just ignoring all counter evidence.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
God does exists

www.jalyat.net...

scientific evidence



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead
I will rebuttal this in order...

Firstly, you assume that evolution is true. If creationism is true then it doesn't matter how big the universe is: life forms don't become different life forms and God decides where they are.


Evolution is a fact. There are tons of evidence for it. Even if it's not a perfect theory, we know more and more avout the evolution of life on earth which appeared about 3.8 billion years ago.

Whereas there is no evidence for creationnism except a 2 000 year old fairy tale.


You can't be serious -- please cite a statistic, article, or anything (i'd love to see a report from an experiment) that proves what you're saying is true. Scientists have never seen the three ingredients you quote above become life nor ANYTHING even close to the complexity of the simplest of unicellular life forms.


That is the way life appeared. Again there is scientific evidence, that you can't ignore.


You have an interesting theory about the missing transitional life forms, but it doesn't make logical sense. When you compare the most closely related life form's genomes up against each other it would take thousands, millions, even billions of DIFFFERENT species in between to have evolved to get to where they are now. That means that if evolution were true then it would take millions of times more different species of creatures than there are in the fossil records and that are alive today? Where are they?


You are wrong. Populations slowly evolved trough time according to their envirronnement.


What about the fact that scientists find fossilized creatures all the time that are carbon-dated to be hundreds of millions of years old, but are the exact same creature we have today: hundreds of different species of bugs, sharks, etc... these creatures haven't changed in any way at all, though the "accurate" method of carbon dating says they are HUNDREDS of millions of years old.


Animal species evolve according to their habitat, as someone explained earlier with the example of the girafe in another topic about evolution.

When a specie is perfectly adapted to their habitat, they no more need to evolve.


Did you know that it is easily verifiable that the dimensions of Noah's ark could EASILY hold every species of creature that lived on land or flew in the sky with PLENTY of room to spare? This even includes insects and infant dinosaurs and sufficient feed.


2 animals of each specie is not enough to repopulate to world,or even a local area... The flood is a myth taken from previous cultures, like most of the Bible anyway.


If a world-wide flood were to happen what would you expect to find? Fossilized creatures every where (especially sea creatures) on the tops of every tall mountain, even Mount Everest and sea sediment on every mountain. Guess what? This is true! There are fossilized sea-creatures on all of the tallest mountains, especially Mount Everest!


Easy one. When earth plates collide, the earth can rise under the pressure caused by the friction. If the earth which rises to form mountains was once under the sea then it is perfectly normal to find fossils there because they were once part of the seafloor.


Did you know that there are several fossilized imprints of an Allosaurus foot print in Europe and Texas with human foot prints in the same sedimentary layer! Do you know what that means? Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time!


link please. I already saw things like that.


God doesn't exist? And you can prove this... how? Are you a sorceror or something?


His non-existance is logical. We are not the toys of some "superior" spirit.


I've already explained this. God is a spiritual or paraphysical essence and is therefore not bound by the laws of physics or the physical universe. Time, matter, energy, and space are all aspects of the physical universe, but God is not physical! He created time, matter, energy, and space! The laws of science, physics, or the law of entropy do not transcend into the paraphysical realm.


Your explanation isn't rationnal. You have no evidence to prove your stories, cause that's all they are.

[edit on 3-6-2005 by DarkSide]

[edit on 3-6-2005 by DarkSide]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
God does exists

www.jalyat.net...

scientific evidence


I suggest a battle to the death between you and nappyhead. Whoever wins must have represented the real god and their silly creation myth is thus vindicated.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by eazy_mas
God does exists

www.jalyat.net...

scientific evidence


I suggest a battle to the death between you and nappyhead. Whoever wins must have represented the real god and their silly creation myth is thus vindicated.


i gave a scientific evidence that is know to muslims for about 1,400 years

There is another thing , one of the islamic scientist prove some disbeliver

the disbelivers said that the earth was created my consicional so he told them to meet him in an island.
When those people where waiting for a long time till the islamic scientist came to them so they asking him why was he late so he answer
" when i was at the port there was not boat so by consicience wood ,nails and hammer was on the water , they started to move and the hammer build the boat and then i came to you"
You would guessed those people reaction to say it impossible so he answered back that the world is not been created by consicience but God created it.

Sorry if you didnt understand some thing plz tell me



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   


You've got to be kidding. You focus in on their "generous adjustment" of their own absurd strawman? The technique they are using is totally absurdly stupidy obnoxiously invalid. Everyone who reads is it dumber as a result. They know it, you know it, and I know it. They could throw in 39,000 orders of magnitude and it would not be generous enough to change the fact that they are flat out lying by calculating the odds of a complete human DNA spontaneously forming from base atoms and then generallizing it to "We've calculated the odds of a sentient being forming blah blah fricken bald faced lying blah...".


Science has been unable to show how DNA or RNA could have formed from a more primitive substance. You can argue with my probabilities, but you can't argue with that. As you know, DNA and RNA are not just simple molecules, but are immeasurably complex systems that have millions of processes, thousands of which must be right from the get-go or the sytem as a whole will fail.

Though if evolution is true, and there is extraterrestrial life, your argument that those life-forms might use base substances other than DNA or RNA doesn't invalidate my argument. The complexity of a sentient life-form would require some type of base substance that, though possibly different from nucleic acid, is generally equivelant to the complexity of the two we have on earth: DNA and RNA.

Even if the odds of a DNA or RNA strand forming on its own was dramatically more realistic than the odds i've presented, it must be created spontaneously by something less complex, whatever that might be, which still leaves you with the "spontaneous formation" problem.



Originally posted by nappyhead
I would be convinced if an experiment started from abiogenesis and turned into a sentient life-form... but don't count on that ever happening.


Unless of course it already has.

You discount the evidence of it simply because it conflicts with your Biblical preconceptions. Just as you reject the evidence of the natural experiment you see before you, you would reject such a lab experiment because it wasn't natural. How do I know? Because creationists have already rejected the experiments involving self replicating molecules for that very reason.


It hasn't happened -- don't act as if it has; if it does happen then I will join you ranks, but until then don't use that as an argument.

Actually I take both sides of the issue and compare the probabilities. Which-ever side is more logical after I compare the two is what I choose. The existence of my God is either a 'yes' or a 'no,' it is a 2:1 chance. Evolution on the other hand has thousands of contradictions, millions of improbabilities (the least of which being the equations I stated), actual tangible evidence against it (especially the fossilization of plants and animals at the base of Mount Saint Helens), and other problems.

You state that creationists have already 'rejected' the self-replicating molecules as if you were stating a fact, but I have read dozens of articles written by creationists on the issue.



Originally posted by nappyhead
And how can the nucleic acid support itself initially without the cell-housing.


Snippets of RNA have been demonstrated to self replicate outside the cellular environment. By the way, that's the second time I told you that. You only hear what you want to hear.


Your 'snippets of RNA' replicated, but didn't remain stable for an extended period of time as one would in the cellular environment.

DNA or RNA must have cellular housing to form into any kind of organism, just as a cell must have DNA or RNA to do the same.

The RNA you refer to was already formed... the experiment didn't prove anything. The question still remains -- where did the RNA originally come from?



Originally posted by nappyhead
Just one more reason I believe in God... and the fact that IF the Universe could be contracted into one dense ball it is impossible for that dense ball to overcome its own gravitational forces without God telling it to.


You're merely assuming this to be true? Besides, doesn't the big bang model contradict the Biblical creation myth?


An equation has already shown that the original dense ball couldn't have overcome the gravitational forces.

The big bang model does contradict the Bible... that is why I tell people that if they want to follow the Bible literally they cannot be theistic evolutionists. I was just demonstrating that even if there was a "ball" it would still take a force that isn't controlled by physics to overcome that gravity.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Physical things are finite... period. THE ONLY POSSIBILITY is that SOMEONE or SOMETHING that is not under the laws of physics and physical restrictions started all that is.


You keep saying that physical things are finite. That's true if you're talking about the specific ordering of energy into, say, and apple. But the energy itself is eternal as far as we can tell. That's what the law of conservation of energy is about. No-one has ever observed the creation nor destruction of energy. It changes forms, but the net quantity remains constant as far as we can tell (within uncertainty limits).

But, current theory does suggest a bound on the age of the universe as well as its size.

I don't think you fully appreciate that space and time are aspects of the universe itself. It is impossible for anything to have created the universe, because the word "create" implies there was a time when it did not exist. But if the universe does not exist, neither does time, so there can not be a time when it did not exist. The universe has always existed everywhere, even if the duration and expanse of that existence are bounded. This is not a simple concept to grasp, you really have to ponder it.


Current theory suggests that the energy that is already in the physical universe can remain at a net constant, but where did it originally come from? That question doesn't change.

It all boils down to one thing: things exist. Things must have a source. Things must be explained somehow. God explains that source.

I believe that God can interact with the physical universe, which means that the physical and spiritual are connected in some ways (though not all).



Originally posted by nappyhead
I'll leave it to you to decide what that SOMEONE or SOMETHING is, but that is basic logic. I've arrived at a belief in a Creator-God because I feel the physical and historical evidence is plenty sufficient.


The best position that fits all available evidence is neither of the options you've given. The evidence is that the universe has always existed.


Ahhhh... so now you are taking an eternal matter and energy approach even though matter cannot be eternal... well... ok.

Though energy remains at a constant net value there is a limited amount of it, it isn't infinite -- there is a big difference. There is only so much energy, but the energy that there is cannot be created or destroyed (unless you consider the existence of some kind of paraphysical deity, god, essence, whatever).



Originally posted by nappyhead
So then perhaps the realm of God isn't absent of time, but rather unlimited by it (or time never ends).


That doesn't help. I've already explained that time is influenced by space and gravity (energy). If time is transcendental, then so must these be in order to influence it. In other words, if time is transcendental, then so is the rest of the universe. You end up right back at an eternal universe.

For your case to have any hope of making sense, you have to assume that god "exists" in a realm without space or time.


First thing, you are using human physical terms to explain way something you can't comprehend -- the paraphysical, the spiritual.

Secondly, it is still a theory that time is directly tied to matter and energy. I know you'll argue that i'm wrong on that, but i've read plenty of articles that conclude they are separate and the original equations were mistaken and miscalculated. And even if time is tied to matter and energy, i've already explained that I believe in an omnipotent Creator who can do anything... even what you, a human, cannot comprehend.



Originally posted by nappyhead
This is explained very simply: the omnipotent Creator-God created a separate realm from his own in which time and space were aspects.


I think it's hopeless. I don't know if you are incapable of grasping this, or are simply ignoring everything I write (probably the latter). The word "create" makes no sense unless time and space already exist.

"X created the universe" is meaningless word salad, regardless of whether that X is proposed to be god or something else.


I know what you are proposing, and i'm capable of grasping your concepts, i'm capable of grasping even deeper ones than these. When you say something makes no sense, you are saying it makes no sense to you. You cannot comprehend spiritual concepts, just as I cannot, so don't explain them away using physical arguments. The God I worship is not bound by time, matter, energy, physics, evolution, or anything the human intellect can throw at him. He created the human intellect and knows far more about how things work, are connected, and operate than you or I could ever know.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Actually I can use just as much physical evidence to prove my case as you can to prove yours, except my theory doesn't have to overcome any improbabilities because my God can do anything; your case has to overcome millions of improbabilities (this is if you are taking an atheistic or theistic evolutionary point of view).


We are here. Since this is an experiment of "1" as far as we know, the probability of us being here is 100%. Your failure to properly assess probabilities doesn't change anything.


I have lots of stuff to refer to and I don't have a favorite per-say, but I'll talk about dinosaurs and humans living at the same time for starters...

Evidence 1: A human footprint and an allosaurus footprint have been found in the same layer of rock, in several instances, in and around Glen Rose, Texas.

Evidence 2: A human footprint and a sauropod footprint have been found in the same layer of rock in Eastern Europe.

Both have been scientifically verified and the first is available for all the world to see.

Evidence 3: Human bones were found in the same layer of rock as dinosaur bones in many different excavations.

Evidence 4: Hundreds of caves across North America and Eastern Europe contain drawings of dinosaurs; these drawings are not fraudulent and are at least 3000 thousand years old.

Evidence 5: Ica burial stones that are dated to be thousands of years old have pictures of different kinds of therapod dinosaurs, including ones of horned dinosaurs -- like triceratops.

Evidence 6: Thousands of primitve figurines, dated to be thousands of years old, are discovered in southern Mexico; hundreds of which are of dinosaurs.

Evidence 7: This one isn't direct evidence, but is interesting. Dozens of totally different tribes in the densest parts of the Congo all verify they have seen, and continue to see, a saurapod-type dinosaur called "Mokele-Membe." Fresh tracks have been found and plastered and they could only be explained as a small saurapod. An area about the size of Florida of pure jungle is almost totally unexplored in the Congo river basin.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I think aliens are harder to believe in, and thats why so many people refuse to believe, and so much more people believe in god than in aliens.
they'd much rather believe in god, because god, pretty much cant hurt you, when aliens are very real and can.
we are all in denial.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitsunegari
I think aliens are harder to believe in, and thats why so many people refuse to believe, and so much more people believe in god than in aliens.
they'd much rather believe in god, because god, pretty much cant hurt you, when aliens are very real and can.
we are all in denial.


There is evidence for alien life. It's a fact, it exists wether you believe in it or not.

There is no evidence for God, people believe in him because of fear or ignorance.




top topics



 
6
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join