Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Lionz]

People can decide all kinds of things perhaps, but what would someone not paying taxes truly say about Him? Maybe we should not judge Him based upon actions of individuals who are not Him. And what if Hovind was not trying to break any tax law and he was told incorrect things by several attorneys?

[Imaweasel]

well this is sufficiantly off-topic....

either way hovind is a god and while intelligent obviously it must be gods "holy will" for him to be in jail...*cough* laughs *cough*

see another reason I dont believe in Gods will why would he let such bad shake happen to one of his best followers...to say good will come of it is circular reasoning...why did god not protect him in the first place and then less bad would have happened by having his name smeared?

[notyou2]

[quote="Lionz"]Jones,


NY2,

Do you refer to 65 plus works composed by 40 plus individuals who lived centuries apart? If so, do you theorize that they all decided to lie to help spread lies in order to support one or more religion that's against lying and theorize that they did that without collaborating with one another? Question to ask yourself and not necessarily send an answer to maybe.[/quote

I am saying there is a book, written by several different people, over several thousand years, concerning stories that happened to several different groups of people, living in several different places, and speaking several different languages. Then this book is translated into numerous other languages over a few thousand years. Today you have billions of people in multiple different sects of several religions based on this book (and a couple of other related books) arguing about anything and everything within the book. They argue about the book itself and what constitutes the book. Some include parts of the book that others don't. Some seem to read things into the book that others can't see. Some charge to interpret the book for you. Many of the stories in the book have uncanny parallels to other stories in other religions that no longer exist (at least openly) and these stories occurred hundreds or thousands of years before they were absorbed into the religions based on the current format(s) of the book.
Many of the stories, borrowed or not, have fantastical/paranormal happenings. These happenings are attributed to a superior being and his kin and assistants, or his nemesis and company.

I see several parallels with this book and others, but an excellent example would be Aesop's Fables.

I love fiction, how bout you?

[Imaweasel]

so then, rather than mock the bible, an obvious great classic of historic fiction which has been so realistically convincing it has deceived hundreds of millions of people in every time frame of history and has stood the test of time as a literary saga of the jewish people and as the perpetrator for the greatest love story ever imagined( that god would die for his creation) and also as the author of the radical beliefs of a man called Jesus (who is worshiped as deity all over the earth, should we not rather be praising this book for the sheer awesomeness of it?

if it is after all just fiction then it should be regarded as the greatest masterpiece of all time and its heros as the greatest characters ever invented by man. However it is looked upon and scorned...odd.

[Neoteny]

DrDino being in jail doesnt affect in anyway whether his creation arguements are correct or not and it is just ignorant and stupid to imply that.

now he also was very stupid and foolish in not obeying the law(something christians were told by jesus to do) and the fact he is in jail decreases his effective arguements effectiveness...

I admitted it was a bit of a character assassination to bring that up, but it was more of a realization of why I hadn't heard from him recently. I had actually forgotten. And it's funny to me.

Neoteny,

Do you mean to suggest entropy decreased on earth without useful energy added to earth? What can harness energy from sunlight?

No. Entropy decreased because useful energy was added to earth. Chlorophyll, carotenoids, and other pigments harness energy from sunlight.

Would Hovind being in jail not be evidence in favor of him? The devil might not be a fan. He was misinformed and is defended here perhaps... http://drdino.com/read-article.php?id=129

I would disagree, but I can't comment on the devil's motives. In reality, his jail time should not be considered when weighing his words. His jail time is not related to his opinions on science.

There's been misleading stuff taught about geologic layers perhaps, but when has Hovind said he believed a certain rock has not existed?

I should have been clearer. His opinion is that stratigraphic dating is unreliable. While he was discussing the topic, he did so under an assumption that was opposed to what he thought was correct, which is commendable, for what that's worth.

Does evidence suggest there was a time on earth with rocks and an oxygen free atmosphere? If not, should we exclude oxygen in any attempt to determine whether or not life spontaneously came to exist on earth? Maybe it was widely believed that earth had a putative primitive atmosphere with an early stage that did not contain significant amounts of oxygen at one or more point in the 1950s, but was oxidation not trying to be avoided?

Yes. The current evidence supports the theory that there was an early atmosphere with very little oxygen (not quite oxygen-free, but close enough). Oxidation is an issue for the formation of some amino acids, but it wasn't trying to be avoided. At that time, the experiment was operating on what they thought the atmosphere was like at the time. Our knowledge of the ancient atmosphere has improved, but Hovind makes Urey and Miller out to be disingenuous in that they were purposely leaving something out. They did not; they were acting on the best knowledge they had at the time.

And when does lightning strike something that UV light does not reach? Do you theorize that life came to exist on earth without an ozone around earth? If not, why even get into UV?

I would say very rarely. I believe the current consensus is that the ozone layer arose after life came about (in fact, I think the ozone layer is believed to be a direct product of life). I only went into UV because Hovind did.

Is there a certain experiment you want to discuss and do you have a source concerning reanalyzation of tubes?

Not particularly, unless you're interested. I just find it rather illustrative. Here's the actual article (you have to have a subscription for the actual article, but you can download the supplementary materials which give a pretty detailed description).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 00/404/DC1

And this is a laymans explanation of the paper.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i42/8642notw4.html

Interesting stuff, if I may say so.

If every person in the world did what for a whole day? Do you have a certain number of letters in mind? Do you stand by the RNA world theory?

I don't have a certain number of letters in mind, and I'll admit my math may be off even by orders of magnitude. The point is that no matter how rare something is, there is an amount of time in which it becomes likely to happen at least once. I'm of the mind that abiogenesis is not as vanishingly rare as Hovind declares it is.

I take no issue with the RNA world theory. I do think it's likely that RNA was a dominant replicator at some point, and it seems likely that it's ability to catalyze reactions was an important stepping stone in the process of abiogenesis. I do not think RNA was the "original replicator," so to speak. I don't think anyone claims to know what that is at the moment.

Brownian motion might tend to un-bond proteins water, but did Hovind claim that proteins did not exist in water? When have amino acids come together to form proteins in water?

I do feel that his claims can be whittled down to "water and brownian motion cause proteins to break apart." Perhaps I am missing a subtle nuance, but I am willing to read a different interpretation of it.

Care to respond to this? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/ ... enesis.asp

I'd rather not, since our conversation has already expanded to a notable size. If there is anything in particular from the article you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to.

[notyou2]

I'm not scorning it, I am scorning the people that misuse it, miss interpret it, abuse others in its name, and those that use it to prey on others. I am scorning the war that occurs in its name. I don't blame the book, I blame the people.

[Imaweasel]

ok

[notyou2]

And I am saying it seems to have a lot of similarities to other books some of which are older than "the book"

[MatYahu]

When asking the question of whether or not there is a Creator coming to a conclusion is the same as drawing any other conclusion. We must weigh out evidences that support or disprove any given theory. In the Question of Intelligent Design we have certain evidences that support the theory that an Intelligent Designer created the universe. I'm going to borrow a little from Aristotle here.. Fact: The universe exists. Fact: Anything that exists has a cause. Now there are two options here. Either the universe created itself, or it was created by an Outside Source. Its insanely improbable that the universe not only created itself, but then organized itself. Given what we know about the laws of physics and using probability calculus its just so unlikely that the universe created itself, and then blindly organized itself so that the conditions for life could be reached. There is obvious design to the universe. Evidence suggests the universe and life were designed by a Designer, and not just a random cosmic mistake.

Secondly, even if the universe was just a random mistake humans would be animals, and animals do not have objective moral values. Darwin's survival of the fittest theory does not give reason to why humans risk their lives for strangers. If the only goal for us is to survive, and reproduce our own bloodline, its completely counter-productive to the ultimate goal that we have been programmed by "nature, or the universe" to risk our lives, share food, and basically help each other if it means we are losing out on something. The fact is humans were made in the image of the Creator. So we do have moral values. Moral values do exist, and the only way the could exist is if there was a Creator, who set a universal moral law, just like He set up the laws of physics, or any other universal law that exists. In every culture there is a word for murder, theft, rape and other things that are unquestionably wrong. Without a Creator these laws would not exist. Nothing would be good or bad. everything would just be opinion. And that is definitely not the case in this reality.

[Neoteny]

Mr. or Ms. MatYahu. I would like to compliment you on your clarity of thought and expression. I am too intoxicated to appropriately respond at this time, but I plan to pick up the slack tomorrow if nobody else has done so.

[Frigidus]

When asking the question of whether or not there is a Creator coming to a conclusion is the same as drawing any other conclusion. We must weigh out evidences that support or disprove any given theory. In the Question of Intelligent Design we have certain evidences that support the theory that an Intelligent Designer created the universe. I'm going to borrow a little from Aristotle here.. Fact: The universe exists. Fact: Anything that exists has a cause. Now there are two options here. Either the universe created itself, or it was created by an Outside Source. Its insanely improbable that the universe not only created itself, but then organized itself. Given what we know about the laws of physics and using probability calculus its just so unlikely that the universe created itself, and then blindly organized itself so that the conditions for life could be reached. There is obvious design to the universe. Evidence suggests the universe and life were designed by a Designer, and not just a random cosmic mistake.

OK, but what about the creator then? If he's the "cause" of the universe, what is his cause? And what is the cause's cause? And the cause's cause's cause? At some point there is a start, something that is not an effect of something else. So we have to drop your second premise. We're back at "the universe exists".

Secondly, even if the universe was just a random mistake humans would be animals, and animals do not have objective moral values. Darwin's survival of the fittest theory does not give reason to why humans risk their lives for strangers.

This isn't true at all. There are countless benefits to organisms working together. Altruism is present in all sorts of different places, both in the animal kingdom and our own species.

The fact is humans were made in the image of the Creator.

Surely you don't mean to suggest you have evidence for this?

In every culture there is a word for murder, theft, rape and other things that are unquestionably wrong. Without a Creator these laws would not exist. Nothing would be good or bad. everything would just be opinion. And that is definitely not the case in this reality.

Murder, theft, or rape may temporarily "benefit" an individual, but a general policy of people being light on murder, theft, or rape would lead to a worse situation for our species as a whole. There are definite reasons beyond our moral code that these things are not allowed.

[Neoteny]

Nevermind. Frigidus wins.

[Lionz]

Imaweasel,

I'm not sure what He thinks about Hovind perhaps, but does scripture not suggest followers of Him have been and will be persecuted?

NY2,

Regardless of what has happened to any work over the course of time, do you theorize that there were 40 plus writers hundreds and hundreds of years ago and hundreds and hundreds of years apart who all made up 65 plus works that back eachother up? And that they all decided to claim things that were not true without collaborating with one another in order to (ironically or not?) support a religion that's opposed to lying?

Rebellious angels lived on earth and had children with women and taught things to mankind years ago and there are several religions that have to do with that perhaps.

You mention similarities? Would it not make sense for there to be various global flood accounts scattered across the earth with striking similarities if there actually was a global flood? And if there truly is a Creator of the heavens and the earth and there are angels who rebelled against the Creator, would it not make sense that they would try to engineer counterfeit fulfilments of prophecy to decieve people if they could?

Neoteny,

What turns sunlight into usable energy? Chloryphyll? Where did external energy come to earth from to help make chlorphyll producing things on earth if that happened?

And I sent an address to a page that suggests Miller-Urey research actually argues against abiogenesis perhaps, but maybe we should move on past one or more thing. How rare is abiogenesis if universal common descent is true and all life stems from one single celled organism? You might have conflicting stances without realizing it.

Frigidus,

Is He Himself physical matter that we know how to test whether He has dwelled in Flesh or not? He has always existed and nothing has to have brought Him into existance maybe.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Maybe, not sure, and not enough evidence for either side" is the most common and honest answer for most of these questions in this thread.

Apart from the questions directed at Neotony concerning those scientific matters (up to a certain point to which science can't explain currently), most of the questions Lionz has been asking have no answer. He's only going to run around in circles. There is faith, and nothing can prove or disprove what onebelieves. Truth is subjective, and there is no absolute truth in the sense that one may be striving for. What's got many people caught up is their firm conviction in the duality of things, and that path always leads them in circles (as seen in this thread). None of y'all are going to get any closer to the answer from where you even started, but it's been fun watching y'all.

[PLAYER57832]

When asking the question of whether or not there is a Creator coming to a conclusion is the same as drawing any other conclusion. We must weigh out evidences that support or disprove any given theory. In the Question of Intelligent Design we have certain evidences that support the theory that an Intelligent Designer created the universe. I'm going to borrow a little from Aristotle here.. Fact: The universe exists. Fact: Anything that exists has a cause. Now there are two options here. Either the universe created itself, or it was created by an Outside Source. Its insanely improbable that the universe not only created itself, but then organized itself. Given what we know about the laws of physics and using probability calculus its just so unlikely that the universe created itself, and then blindly organized itself so that the conditions for life could be reached. There is obvious design to the universe. Evidence suggests the universe and life were designed by a Designer, and not just a random cosmic mistake.

As a CHRISTIAN, I have to say you show a supreme lack of logic here.

Whether God created the universe (I believe he did) OR it sprung up "by itself", you still have the question of "something from nothing" -- if God created the universe, then from where came God? The "logic" regarding creation is the same.

The universe exists, yes, but the truth is we barely understand Earth, never mind the entire universe.

You ASSUME that there must have been a "beginning". Yet, it is quite possible (and consistant with the Bible stating that God always was and always will be) that there was no beginning. This is very hard for us to wrap our minds around, BUT, try to envision "something" before anything and that is pretty difficult, also.

As I said before, the real truth is that we just don't know and likely are a very long way from really knowing how our universe began.

Further, within Christianity, the point is irrelevant. God created us, our Earth and our universe. Beyond that, the Bible is essentially mute, except, as I noted above to say that God has always been here. "Illogical" as it seems, the Bible seems to indicate there was no true, ultimate beginning to all. At least not in any sense that we can interpret.

Secondly, even if the universe was just a random mistake humans would be animals, and animals do not have objective moral values. Darwin's survival of the fittest theory does not give reason to why humans risk their lives for strangers.

You are spinning Darwin's theory into something it is not. Further, his original theory since been modified greatly --- Darwin did not know genetics, believed the Earth much younger than it truly seems to be AND he had no knowledge of the cataclysmic die-offs our Earth has experiences multiple times.

This is pretty complex, but here is a brief synopsis.

1. First, "survival of the fittest" is definitely not absolute. That is, it only applies when 2 traits compete directly with each other and have roughly equal genetic dominance. What gives an animal advantage can change over time. THIS was human being's primary advantage. We were not tied to strictly genetic variation, because we had an intelligence, a willingness to seek out things that allow us to overcome our genetic "shortfalls". We survive in times of great change, whereas animals that are "too highly adapted" to their environments die off. Those animals were fully successful for their narrow environments, but could not survive change. We can.

2.Helping strangers is sociology/anthropology. In Judaism and Christianity, we are taught to help others "because it is the right thing to do". However, you find that idea within most cultures and religions. Why? because we benefit. If the culture supports helping each other, then we can work together to accomplish goals. This is not possible when everyone else is an "enemy". So, ironically, this trait, while not a "genetic" trait necessarily, is actually a "survival of the fittest" trait.

If the only goal for us is to survive, and reproduce our own bloodline, its completely counter-productive to the ultimate goal that we have been programmed by "nature, or the universe" to risk our lives, share food, and basically help each other if it means we are losing out on something.

1. God, Christianity, have "goals". "Nature", "biology" do not. The idea that the "best" trait would "always win" (or mostly win) is just wrong. Many traits that might have been quite advantageous have dissapeared.

2. As I noted above, it is not at all "counter productive". In fact, our ability to help and work with others is, along with our intelligence, one of the primary traits that allows us to develop civilization.

The fact is humans were made in the image of the Creator.

It is a fact within the Bible, Christianity. It is not something you can prove to someone who disbelieves the Bible. Therefore it is not really a "fact", not in the scientific context. Sorry.

So we do have moral values. Moral values do exist, and the only way the could exist is if there was a Creator, who set a universal moral law, just like He set up the laws of physics, or any other universal law that exists.

While I agree we have morals, you cannot prove the only way for it to exist was a Creator. This is just wrong. That sort of Leap of "logic", actually false logic, is why Creationist have no credibility amongst scientists.

In every culture there is a word for murder, theft, rape and other things that are unquestionably wrong. Without a Creator these laws would not exist. Nothing would be good or bad. everything would just be opinion. And that is definitely not the case in this reality.

Again, this is just not true. Murder, theft and rape are antithesis of civilization. Going back to what I said earlier, working together is the most supreme benefit. These things are counter to that idea. So, no, you have not proven anything.

[AAFitz]

In every culture there is a word for murder, theft, rape and other things that are unquestionably wrong. Without a Creator these laws would not exist. Nothing would be good or bad. everything would just be opinion. And that is definitely not the case in this reality.

Even in social animal groups, there is culture. From the basic, such as ants and bees, right through to mammals especially whales, apes, chimps elephants, and big cats, and countless examples along the way.

Those animal groups have culture. Individuals are not allowed by the group to break those rules if hit harms the group. They will often be shunned, or more likely killed, especially on the lower end of the spectrum. Rape is not allowed in most groups. If it is attempted, the alpha male will typically kill the offender. If a member becomes too aggressive towards other members, it will be shunned, or killed. And again, these are cultures developed by groups that are not nearly as capable of organization as man. They simply instinctively work together to insure their best chances of survival.

Surely a creator need not be present for rules within a group or civilization. Its simply silly to think that without God, everyone would go on a murderous rampage and kill one another, because even those cultures that never heard of, or knew of God, did not do so, unless they had the power to get away with it.

In the name of God however, many of those acts have indeed been committed throughout history.

[jonesthecurl]

...and, to put the "there must be a creator-look around you" argument in perspective again (I know others have made this point, but it doesn't seem to be getting through)

Here is the argument (let's go back to the "watchmaker")

1. I see a watch. Wow, that's complicated, someone must have made it.
2. Now I see the Universe. Wow, that's really big and organised. Someone must have made that.
3. Now I contemplate the idea of "God". Wow, God is really really immense, and structured.
4...why should I not now say "Someone must have made "God"? the logic is the same as the previous steps.

[Imaweasel]

As a CHRISTIAN, I have to say you show a supreme lack of logic here.

Well thats wonderfully supportive to a fellow christian...proving why im sick of christians because they do not agree or have unity and harmony like the bible commands and you would viciously attack a fellow christian

Whether God created the universe (I believe he did) OR it sprung up "by itself", you still have the question of "something from nothing" -- if God created the universe, then from where came God? The "logic" regarding creation is the same.

God didnt need to have a beginning. Humans will never understand this concept because we are created. We can not comprehend infinity because we had a beginning. We then logically can not comprehend something that did not begin.

The universe exists, yes, but the truth is we barely understand Earth, never mind the entire universe.

We were never meant to understand it all.

You ASSUME that there must have been a "beginning". Yet, it is quite possible (and consistant with the Bible stating that God always was and always will be) that there was no beginning. This is very hard for us to wrap our minds around, BUT, try to envision "something" before anything and that is pretty difficult, also.

He is actually stating just that.

As I said before, the real truth is that we just don't know and likely are a very long way from really knowing how our universe began.

If you claim to be a christian then you do know. The bible clearly states how and why the world and man were created. (erg) "for His Glory" The sad thing (and another reason I dislike christians) is they have comformed to the worlds ideas and intergrated versions of creation and science to appear more reasonable and "scientific" and also so they dont appear foolish in believing that childrens fable called creation.

Further, within Christianity, the point is irrelevant. God created us, our Earth and our universe. Beyond that, the Bible is essentially mute, except, as I noted above to say that God has always been here. "Illogical" as it seems, the Bible seems to indicate there was no true, ultimate beginning to all. At least not in any sense that we can interpret.

This is pretty complex, but here is a brief synopsis.

1. First, "survival of the fittest" is definitely not absolute. That is, it only applies when 2 traits compete directly with each other and have roughly equal genetic dominance. What gives an animal advantage can change over time. THIS was human being's primary advantage. We were not tied to strictly genetic variation, because we had an intelligence, a willingness to seek out things that allow us to overcome our genetic "shortfalls". We survive in times of great change, whereas animals that are "too highly adapted" to their environments die off. Those animals were fully successful for their narrow environments, but could not survive change. We can.

If you are a christian you CANNOT subscribe to any part of the theory of evolution and its relations to man. We were supposedly created in the IMAGE of God. As such we would need absolutely NO genetic variation or changes. Our advantage would be God gave us "dominion over the beast of the field" and gave us a mind and breathed in us the "breath of life"

2.Helping strangers is sociology/anthropology. In Judaism and Christianity, we are taught to help others "because it is the right thing to do". However, you find that idea within most cultures and religions. Why? because we benefit. If the culture supports helping each other, then we can work together to accomplish goals. This is not possible when everyone else is an "enemy". So, ironically, this trait, while not a "genetic" trait necessarily, is actually a "survival of the fittest" trait.

Selfishness is a trait of human nature. You are wrong to claim helping people is. Every child must be TAUGHT to share and to help others. And they must be told WHY. We are not naturally helpful and kind. Any culture in which this "helpfulness" is displayed is actually selfishness not "helping" or "caring" about others. Its selfish because they do it only to ensure their own survival or mayhaps as a bargaining chip but in the end the only reason people do things to help others is cause they see some benefit for themselves in the long run.

If the only goal for us is to survive, and reproduce our own bloodline, its completely counter-productive to the ultimate goal that we have been programmed by "nature, or the universe" to risk our lives, share food, and basically help each other if it means we are losing out on something.

1. God, Christianity, have "goals". "Nature", "biology" do not. The idea that the "best" trait would "always win" (or mostly win) is just wrong. Many traits that might have been quite advantageous have dissapeared.

proving survival of the fittest is not a valid arguement.

2. As I noted above, it is not at all "counter productive". In fact, our ability to help and work with others is, along with our intelligence, one of the primary traits that allows us to develop civilization.

If Evolution WAS true...then as I stated above the only time we would help people was when it help us. such as we would let the poor starving africans starve because it WOULD be counter productive to help them when we can never expect to receive back from them.

It is a fact within the Bible, Christianity. It is not something you can prove to someone who disbelieves the Bible. Therefore it is not really a "fact", not in the scientific context. Sorry.

you are supremely stupid here. Gravity was a fact before it was proven. Christopher Columbus KNEW the world was not flat before it was proven. Facts are Facts where you chose to believe them or not. Some would contest that the very existance of the universe is fact enough of a creator. You may deny it all you want but it doesnt change Fact.

While I agree we have morals, you cannot prove the only way for it to exist was a Creator. This is just wrong. That sort of Leap of "logic", actually false logic, is why Creationist have no credibility amongst scientists.

1.Creationists should not need the respect of scientists. The bible doesn't attempt to prove itself. It states things as fact. You believe or not. That is the very problem with creationist nowadays...they seek to prove/be respected by science. Science will never respect God when it denys His existance. Science will never respect someone who believes in "fables" The science of old used to have men like galilaeo and copernicus killed for going against the accepted norm.

2. You need to read C.S.Lewis -Mere christianity. He easily proves that morals can only come from a Higher power of some sort. Example-- People obey laws why? Because someone higher made the law and said it must be followed. If they don't there is a punishment
Everything we do in life can be traced to a higher power than our own selves. Everything we do (think is right/acceptable) comes because someone else let us know this was acceptable or that this was not acceptable. In the end when we trace all things back we must come to who told the first humans what was and wasnt right and wrong. (since we reject evolution we arrive at the conclusion there must be an ultimate power which has made these laws)

In every culture there is a word for murder, theft, rape and other things that are unquestionably wrong. Without a Creator these laws would not exist. Nothing would be good or bad. everything would just be opinion. And that is definitely not the case in this reality.

Again, this is just not true. Murder, theft and rape are antithesis of civilization. Going back to what I said earlier, working together is the most supreme benefit. These things are counter to that idea. So, no, you have not proven anything.

Actually he has proven quite abit. Proven by the fact that the world is slowly degenerating as we deny more and more the laws of morality and consciense.
There is more murder rape and crime comitted now than ever in human history. why is this? I elieve because we believe less and less in God and ultimate right and wrong.

AS MatYahu stated quite clearly "everything would just be opinion" and is that not what is happening in the world today....less and less is considered wrong and evil and more and more is opinion. This degeneration is a direct result of the theory of evolution and the effects its practice has on the world.

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

What turns sunlight into usable energy? Chloryphyll? Where did external energy come to earth from to help make chlorphyll producing things on earth if that happened?

Those questions require in-depth answers. Currently, the things that turn sunlight into usable energy are things like chlorophyll and carotenoids. But that doesn't necessarily mean they just formed into the way they were now all at once. The most reasonable train of thought is that they started as much simpler molecules that were much less effective than modern photosynthetic pigments. The gist of how chlorophyll works is that sunlight excites these pigments (the pigments absorb the energy from the sun, and this is transferred chemically by electron transfer or other forms of bonding) in a manner that allows the energy to be physically captured and moved to areas where it can be used. I don't know how familiar you are with biochemistry, but it's a similar concept to the electron transport chain that we all usually learn at some point in school. Now, this also does not mean that the organisms were floating around and thought "oh, here's all this energy I could be using. Let me build something up to use it," nor does it mean that the organism even built anything from scratch. It's far more likely that there was something already in the organism that mutated or was otherwise redirected from elsewhere to the purpose of catching energy. A good example of this is seen in certain carotenoids, particularly carotene, which are structurally very similar to "vitamin A" (retinal), and it's easy to see that there could be some co-opting going on there. I don't know off the top of my head how the evolution of carotenoids actually went down, but it's scientifically and logically sound to think of it in such a manner. Anyhow, all the initial molecule had to do was get excited by energy from the sun, and then be able to release it. Once that occurred, the energy was available for organisms to develop the mechanisms to use it, as well as to hone their ability to capture energy, leading us to modern day chlorophyll. It also bears mentioning that organisms that could harness sun energy would have a massive boost over those who had to rely on local sugar sources or whatever else they may have been using back then, in that the supply of energy was constant and guaranteed, so genes for building photosynthetic molecules would have spread like wildfire. Does that answer your questions?

By the way, the evolution of chloroplasts (and mitochondria) is very interesting; I had to give a presentation on endosymbiosis theory a few years back, and it was rather enjoyable.

And I sent an address to a page that suggests Miller-Urey research actually argues against abiogenesis perhaps, but maybe we should move on past one or more thing. How rare is abiogenesis if universal common descent is true and all life stems from one single celled organism? You might have conflicting stances without realizing it.

I did read a little bit of it, but we are already in pretty deep discussion, so I don't know that we want to add more to it at the moment. Also, I'm not sure I have the willpower to respond to every article you might find on the topic of abiogenesis. Nobody knows what the exact odds are of abiogenesis occurring, particularly because we do not know the exact conditions it may have occurred in. However, the typical mantra goes "it only needed to happen once." If we assume the conditions are right for abiogenesis, then it is only a matter of time before it occurs. It might require millions or billions of years, or it might require hundreds or thousands. But once it happened, it takes off quite easily from there. Is that conflicting with anything I've said thus far?

[notyou2]

Imaweasel,



NY2,

Regardless of what has happened to any work over the course of time, do you theorize that there were 40 plus writers hundreds and hundreds of years ago and hundreds and hundreds of years apart who all made up 65 plus works that back eachother up? And that they all decided to claim things that were not true without collaborating with one another in order to (ironically or not?) support a religion that's opposed to lying?

Rebellious angels lived on earth and had children with women and taught things to mankind years ago and there are several religions that have to do with that perhaps.

You mention similarities? Would it not make sense for there to be various global flood accounts scattered across the earth with striking similarities if there actually was a global flood? And if there truly is a Creator of the heavens and the earth and there are angels who rebelled against the Creator, would it not make sense that they would try to engineer counterfeit fulfilments of prophecy to decieve people if they could?

I have no idea how many writers contributed to the books that compose the bible, and I believe no one actually knows how many collaborators there really were. Anyone that actually claims to know would be a liar. "Back each other up"....so do Aesop's Fables that actually has a title relevant to the contents. The bibles books have been translated and manipulated for thousands of years. Many of the contents depend on who did the translating and their grasp of the two languages they were working with. Are you insinuating that nothing has been altered, lost, or added in the translations over the millennia? If you are, I infer that you are a liar, or at the very least you are extremely gullible.

I believe that bible and many of it's stories were simply that, stories with morals to live by. Many people have made it into far more than was intended and in many cases for purposes of greed.

[pmchugh]

Undeniable proof

[MatYahu]

It's more reasonable to believe that life on earth came from existing life since we see life coming from life on a daily basis. "Biogenesis" (definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biogenesis) is observed each and every day so it doesn't even require faith to believe life comes from life. It does however require an abundance of faith to "believe" non-life can somehow create life. The reason is simple. Abiogenesis is a theory, something that has never been observed. No one can prove non-life can create life. We can prove life comes from life. That is why it takes no "faith" to believe life on earth came from pre-existing life, but it does require truckloads of faith to believe non-life can somehow produce life.

I'd like to note that scientists have been attempting to accomplish some kind of abiogenesis in laboratories since the 1950's. They have had no success. Sometimes these projects are heavily funded by atheist organizations for obvious reasons, but they don't seem to realize all this work is in vain. The reason being the work is in vain is even if a team of scientists do observe abiogenesis all that would mean is it took intelligent life to create life. If abiogenesis is observed by scientists that observation isn't some kind of support for the atheist theory, it just further supports Intelligent Design. That discovery also wouldn't prove at all non-life, with-out intelligent help, could produce life. The atheist humanists should give the money to the poor and needy, not to a science team who even if is successful, won't prove any of their claims.

There are atheists who will say "if life comes from life then how was the original life created?" and what I don't get about that response is these people can have "faith" in all the unobservable claims of atheism, but can't fathom the fact that the Creator always existed. Why can one so willing to believe that non-life creates life, and that a singularity exploded and arranged itself (for no reason) into the universe we see today not believe the Creator always existed? Believing the Source of Life, that Energy always existed is a remarkably less preposterous claim then the claims "non-life can produce life" or "even though there is obvious design in the universe and nature, there is no designer". There are atheists who argue the universe always existed (even though its obviously expanding). How is saying the universe always existed any different then saying the Creator always existed? It's almost the same thing, except adding a Creator explains the cause of the big bang, the design in nature, and the fine tuned laws of physics. Everything the atheist says to back up his claims of there being no Creator is nothing more then statements that have no evidence to support them, and sometimes they have to deny what we do know about the universe to accept them.

[Neoteny]

It's more reasonable to believe that life on earth came from existing life since we see life coming from life on a daily basis. "Biogenesis" (definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biogenesis) is observed each and every day so it doesn't even require faith to believe life comes from life. It does however require an abundance of faith to "believe" non-life can somehow create life. The reason is simple. Abiogenesis is a theory, something that has never been observed. No one can prove non-life can create life. We can prove life comes from life. That is why it takes no "faith" to believe life on earth came from pre-existing life, but it does require truckloads of faith to believe non-life can somehow produce life.

I'm becoming increasingly sure that you are out of your league. First off, a theory carries much more weight scientifically than you are giving it credit for. It is not the same thing as the "theory" as used in everyday speech. Ignoring that, you make a lot of assertions with absolutely nothing to back them up. Nobody has yet proven that life can arise from non-life. Just because you can't wrap your head around the possibility, doesn't mean it will never be accomplished. Next, it is not a giant leap of faith to assume that life arose from none life. I would bet that you think that at some point there was not life, and then later on there was life. We only disagree on how it occurred. You believe in magic, while I believe that the natural world is wondrous enough on its own to allow for the rising of life. I realize that you desperately want to believe that atheists base their worldview on the same thing you do (that is, how you feel about things), but the fact of the matter is that is not the case. Experiments have not ruled out the possibility of abiogenesis, despite how strongly you feel it could never have happened.

I'd like to note that scientists have been attempting to accomplish some kind of abiogenesis in laboratories since the 1950's. They have had no success. Sometimes these projects are heavily funded by atheist organizations for obvious reasons, but they don't seem to realize all this work is in vain. The reason being the work is in vain is even if a team of scientists do observe abiogenesis all that would mean is it took intelligent life to create life. If abiogenesis is observed by scientists that observation isn't some kind of support for the atheist theory, it just further supports Intelligent Design. That discovery also wouldn't prove at all non-life, with-out intelligent help, could produce life. The atheist humanists should give the money to the poor and needy, not to a science team who even if is successful, won't prove any of their claims.

They have had huge successes in the study of abiogenesis. They have demonstrated that all the required tools for life can be created from non-living matter. That is a huge success. They have not "created life" yet, but that is no reason to minimize their work. And if life is created by mimicking the conditions of the early earth, then that is very roughly equivalent to proving abiogenesis can occur naturally. It's not like they are building a bridge from blueprints. They're shocking goo. Come on. With respect to how humanist organizations spend their money, you should probably check that beam in thine eye.

There are atheists who will say "if life comes from life then how was the original life created?" and what I don't get about that response is these people can have "faith" in all the unobservable claims of atheism, but can't fathom the fact that the Creator always existed. Why can one so willing to believe that non-life creates life, and that a singularity exploded and arranged itself (for no reason) into the universe we see today not believe the Creator always existed? Believing the Source of Life, that Energy always existed is a remarkably less preposterous claim then the claims "non-life can produce life" or "even though there is obvious design in the universe and nature, there is no designer". There are atheists who argue the universe always existed (even though its obviously expanding). How is saying the universe always existed any different then saying the Creator always existed? It's almost the same thing, except adding a Creator explains the cause of the big bang, the design in nature, and the fine tuned laws of physics. Everything the atheist says to back up his claims of there being no Creator is nothing more then statements that have no evidence to support them, and sometimes they have to deny what we do know about the universe to accept them.

I really have to commend you for cramming so many religious cliches about atheism into such a small space. Let me just ask this: how is saying a creator always existed any different than saying the universe always existed. Which is the simpler explanation, and which is the one that uses less magic? Additionally, everything the religionist says to back up his claims of there being a creator is nothing more than statements that have no evidence to support them, and sometimes they have to deny what we do know about the universe to accept them. At least atheists take what they see at face value, without belittling it by adding sky-tyrants for no reason other than to explain away what you can't understand.

[MatYahu]

Don't take my posts personally. I am presenting arguments that people can take or leave. Making personal attacks isnt going to help anyone.

[PLAYER57832]

It's more reasonable to believe that life on earth came from existing life since we see life coming from life on a daily basis. "Biogenesis" (definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biogenesis) is observed each and every day so it doesn't even require faith to believe life comes from life. It does however require an abundance of faith to "believe" non-life can somehow create life. The reason is simple. Abiogenesis is a theory, something that has never been observed. No one can prove non-life can create life. We can prove life comes from life. That is why it takes no "faith" to believe life on earth came from pre-existing life, but it does require truckloads of faith to believe non-life can somehow produce life.
.

Stopped here (did read the rest, but the problem is highlighted well enough in this).

See, here is the thing. Absence of proof is never the same as proof. You cannot declare that this or that is reasonable and this other option is reasonable unless you are talking strictly opinion ... and not well-grounded opinion. Many, many things we know to be absolutely true were very much illogical when first thought out. We have a modern example in the discovery that bacteria cause ulcers. There are many, many others.

Beyond that, while no one has absolutely created life from "non-life", they absolutely have created complex proteins, such as are believed to be the founding blocks of life.

No one is declaring that life is a casual, often occuring event. It is something very, very rare that perhaps happened only a few times. AND, even then, it is, yes, only theory.

Second, this is not actually a counter to Christianity at all. It is a discussion as much within Christianity as between Christians and non-Christians. The issue outside Christianity is whether God exists, yes. Within Christianity, however, the question remains as to how, exactly, God did all this. The Bible is not and never was intended to be a scientific text. It is an explanation to a decidedly unscientific people. A true explanation, but the word "day" (or the hebrew equivalent "yom") is simply not intended, was never intended to mean 6 revolutions of the Earth.