No way, gravity has had a terrible year, and all of its players are ancient. Now nuclear fission, on the other hand, has been picking up steam for decades and is heading straight to the playoffs! Er... Nobel Committee.

I find the timing of this confirmation hilarious. Just as the world welcomes a new pope, science confirms the existence of a particle that hopefully will further add to the case against the likely-hood of a God. Oh, the irony.

Science is silent on the matter of faith. There are things that we cannot yet explain with science. If you want to believe that they are due to Allah, Jehovah, Cthulhu or the Great Flying Spaghetti monster, fine.

I am an atheist, I don't believe in any of this stuff. But hey, if people want to, more power to them. Just don't preach at me, and don't tell me how I need to be saved.

But also, let us not press the religionists' buttons. Why pick a fight?

There has to be a creator, whatever you want to call him, it, her, etc...

Byron is an atheist? Really?

Swear to God?

I don't see how better understanding the laws of the universe would give someone more cause to reject 'God'. As we discover more and more intricate and amazing things like this, I would think it would do just the opposite.

ok so what...go get a real job....

Can't wait to hear what Sheldon Cooper has to say about it.

Byron,

You forgot the Great Green Arkleseisure.

Dark matter has already been corralled...it is Dick Cheney!

GCK-WYO

I find the timing of this confirmation hilarious. Just as the world welcomes a new pope, science confirms the existence of a particle that hopefully will further add to the case against the likely-hood of a God. Oh, the irony.

Why do you find it hilarious ? The particle has nothing to do with God, its existence neither proves , nor disproves God. How about just talking about the particle..

And there's Coyotehunter, the cheap American Libtard (Libertarian) accountant chiming in to discourage spending of any sort. Even for countries other than America.

Speaking of matter......starsailing graduated from WHATSAMATTER U.

I agree with the OP's suggestion on gravity as it is the least understood of the fundamental interactions in physics, right up there with how difficult it is to nail down quantum mechanics.

@SFaccountant: Umm, nuclear fission is pretty much a done deal and has been figured out. Now, nuclear fusion (just like the process the sun goes through) on the other hand, that is another thing to get down to.

@Byron Raum: I couldn't agree more as science is, on its own basis, too humble to think of deities/belief systems involved in scientific structure, calculation and theory. I mean, one cannot even measure that when postulating and factoring evidence (I emphasize "evidence") into theories; it's not possible under normal mathematical functions.

@jack-1792739: Why does there have to be a creator?

@MyRant: Because science doesn't deal with deities or belief systems, it deals with science. Belief systems do not work as a scientific or mathematical function. If one wants to imagine that it does, that's fine, but it can never be honestly calculated other than trying it in the abstract.

@COYOTEHUNTER: How much taxpayer money gets wasted subsidizing massively profitable businesses because they feel entitled? If the sciences were not funded, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages. Other countries are surpassing us in math and science creating new processes while many of the science deniers claim we are hellbound if we don't reject science.

God is, you stupid little men.

And how many taxpayer dollars were spent to discover this?...

None of yours, duncecap--did you even read where the LHC is located? As in Switzerland? Or are you telling me that you pay taxes to them too?...

^^LOL^^

Conjuring Cat

And how many taxpayer dollars were spent to discover this?...

Well $ 2 billion for our own (cancelled) attempt - the Superconducting Supercollider in Wexahachie, TX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

Maybe Rick Perry might want to start it up again : - )

GCK-WYO

I find the timing of this confirmation hilarious. Just as the world welcomes a new pope, science confirms the existence of a particle that hopefully will further add to the case against the likely-hood of a God. Oh, the irony.

I was thinking that, or its time for more funding. It is just as likely that a living cell was created out of a mix of a cosmic fart and a lightning bolt as it is that a higher being created us. Evolution cannot explain a blob of mas evolving into an actual dividing cell...a blob of mass and perfect conditions cannot evolve if it is unable to duplicate itself in order to have a chance to evolve. Therefore, evolution, while able to explain how we could get from a living cell the the variety of life we see here today, cannot explain how we get from a blob of mass into a living cell. The answer is not meant for us to find. That does not even begin to explain how all the elements that make up the known universe came into being to begin with.

The answer is not meant for us to find.

There are some very good answers, and they involve neither science nor religion, which both have their own blinders firmly in place. Not looking to proselytize in any way, but if you really want other possible answers, you can and will find them.

There are truly some things that we humans will never fully understand. I took astronomy in college as part of my course requirements and was gobsmacked. We are just a speck of sand on a giant beach. And no, I'm not high. Astronomy and science just fascinate me. Atheists don't have all the answers either. Maybe it's easier to believe in nothing than to have faith that there is something beyond all of this. And I thank Byron the atheist for not cramming his beliefs down my throat just as I don't want others, such as the fundie flock to cram their beliefs down my throat. Evolution is a fact. I have my degree in Physical Anthropology and am currently, slowly but surely working on my Master's. None of us knows it all.

richardharrow

And there's Coyotehunter, the cheap American Libtard (Libertarian) accountant chiming in to discourage spending of any sort. Even for countries other than America.

Um, isn't it the OTHER party constantly whining about us liberal spending there Richard? Just because he posted something stupid, it must be a liberal thing. Wow at least pick the right thing to whine about and get the party affiliations correct genius.

Amazing how people turn absolutely anything into a fistfight about either religion or politics. Or both. I always picture these mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging eighth-grade-dropout bible-thumping flat-earther repubicans (NOT a typo) as cherry red in the face with a formidable frown, fangs flashing and foam flying from their mouths - as they try to convince the rest of us that the earth is 6,000 years old, snakes can talk, and Jesus is coming back and boy, because he loves us so much, he'll send us to a place where we'll burn for eternity.
Hey, what's not to love?

You're obviously one of those looking to start a fistfight.

Science makes planes fly.

Religion makes planes fly into buildings.

The god particle does not prove the existence of god, you dolt.

It is merely the smallest building block.

It's like looking at a sky scraper for 50 years and then finally being able to see bricks.

Many physicists hate the term "God particle" because it did not originate in the way you might think. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman wrote a book with "God Particle" in the title, but reportedly said he'd actually wanted to call it the "Goddamn Particle."

So can we please stop calling it the god particle and call it the Higgs Bosun instead?

Tommy. Great points all the way down. A good read for sure. Thanks.

AlexG. Priceless. Thanks.

"I don't see how better understanding the laws of the universe would give someone more cause to reject 'God'. As we discover more and more intricate and amazing things like this, I would think it would do just the opposite." - MyRant (1.6)

No, if you WOULD think you might see that that makes no rational sense. God(s) was invented both due to a fear of death and as a means of explaining the unexplainable.

Science probably can't do much about one's fear of death but it does explain and bring an understanding to things that were and are a mystery.

While I agree with most of your brief post, AlexG, it's not just any religion that flew those planes into buildings and killed 3,000 innocents. It was radical Muslims. My brother is Muslim. He converted a year ago and I totally support him.He is not a radical.

The majority of religious people truly are peace loving people who would never hurt a soul. I'm not including members of The American Christian Taliban. Killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics isn't exactly behaving as Christ would want His followers to act. There are bad apples in every religion. But otherwise, great post. Short and to the point.

If you pray to the Higgs bison - you will get 3 wishes - but to have to swear to never harm Lord Bison's rocky mountain oysters.

Any time humans gather - no good is going to come from it. One mans flock, is another mans gang.

Jetjoky; I'd have to say power was the reason for the invention of religions/faiths. Religion gave those with power, validity.

Who will get over it first; the Catholics for losing world domination - or - the South getting over the Civil War?

Science and religion; have never paid any of my bills, when they do, I'll give a hoot. I will say this; I think science wins in the long run, only because it operates on asking questions - where as all religions claim to be finished products (containing all the answers).

"It is merely the smallest building block."..

Until a smaller one is discovered.. Don't assume that we've finally come to the definitive answer as the next phase will slap you in the face..

Why can't we allow both to exist (science & god) are we so one dimensional that we can't allow this? It doesn't have to be as religion depicts it but as awesome as science itself.. I know, I know.. Religion would never go for it.. Oh well, their loss

There isn't any need for a god, no point in even talking about it. Once a person has developed the courage to break loose from cultural hangovers, one can embrace an unlimited freedom in working with the wave that develops from quantum pulsation. Ride the wave. Enjoy as the intersection of light and sound expand consciousness in an omni directional and unlimited vibration. You are your own and only creator.

So what, so they have found the smallest known particle. And this means????

This is old news a scientist in hawii had discovered it a couple of years ago! The showed the scientist and interviewed him on the syfi program called through the worm hole with morgan freeman!

If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?

He didn't discover it. He predicted it existed. So have others--see: particle's name. He was right, but only because the new news confirms Higgs.

I came here hoping to escape, if even for a minute, the garbage of religion and politics that I volunteer to wade through nearly daily. No such luck. This discovery has no impact on whether or not God exists. I say He doesn't, but it's a non-issue relative to the Higgs Boson. And this kind of science shuld be funded by government. It is, but all too often the government also funds things like studies to understand why lesbians are far heavier than homosexual males. Really?

C'mon people. This story is a GOOD story, not because it solves anything. It is good because it confirms (we can so seldom say this) that we are still on a curious journey, exploring our universe.

Chris from Yucaipa

Um, isn't it the OTHER party constantly whining about us liberal spending there Richard? Just because he posted something stupid, it must be a liberal thing. Wow at least pick the right thing to whine about and get the party affiliations correct genius.

Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, have contracted to buy a new apartment in the Flatiron District of New York City, which had just been listed for $10.5 million.

http://realestate.msn.com/blogs/listedblogpost.aspx?post=6746643f-4bf4-4b39-b2cd-6c5a9f187feb

Um, so just what “party affiliation” is good ole Chelsea with? I’m sure this lovely Liberal/Progressive couple is just helping the “little guy”, right? Or, in this case, the plumbers union. Funny how those unions come into all this money, isn’t it?

Try to keep up Spanky.

the amount of people with little to no understanding of Higgs boson and the LHC (or even science in general) commenting on this really bothers me. also the people mindlessly finding ways to drag religion and politics into this. if you don't know what you're talking about then kindly either shut up and leave the comment section for those who want to have meaningful conversation on the subject, or alternatively ask us questions or something. if you want to talk about politics or religion then go to an article about politics or religion.

and no, if you're wondering the "god particle" DOES NOT have anything to do with god, so this ISN'T a religious article

Byron, Are you f'ing kidding? Religion has been at war with science since the beginning of time. Time to kick religion's ass back to the middle ages where it belongs.

Lawlzerz, You are absolutely right. This shouldn't be about religion or politics. People should want to discover the origins of the universe (and beyond). However, it can't help but become a discussion on both of those topics. Religious people don't want anything that can undermine there whole belief system (of which i personally feel there is plenty). political people hate the cost (in tax dollars) that these discoveries cost. But, how can you put a cost on something that helps us understand the universe? Or, can lead to other discoveries that could potentially aid all of mankind? Although I don't agree with either of these groups, I do understand their positions (sad face).

It's funny how often religious people are bashed on yet it's always fifteen thousand atheists swarming a few comments with their beliefs and how much they hate anything that challenges their science, even though a ton of religion following people are fine with science. Science isn't there to disprove religion, just to find how things work unlike what atheists believe.

It's interesting to watch scientists do their stuff. But that's all it is. Ben Franklin flew his kite and eventually we've got t.v. Particle physics may never make a difference in our lives, but it might someday.

Religion has, and does make a difference in our lives. On average, I think it's bad. The worst part of it is when someone says "God said it, I believe it and that settles it. Oh yeah? When donkeys fly. The next best bumper sticker for agravation is "I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you!"

thank you WAdan1959, but i feel that the worries both of these groups present to us are both illogical and unfounded.

first of all the LHC is in Switzerland so unless any of the people on here complaining about tax money are Swiss, any problem they present to us is fundamentally invalid.

as for the strongly religious, i have never understood their illogical fear of the sciences. in our search for how the universe works, aren't we just explaining to them how it is that their god makes everything work? if you tell a religious person the universe was created by the big bang, then shouldn't they naturally assume that it was their god that caused the big bang, rather than completely dismissing the idea as impossible? i think that dismissing it in such a manner would show a lack of faith of what their god is capable of.

either way the majority of the time most people from both groups have consistently failed to present their positions in a logical organized fashion. usually it just boils down to insults and seemingly mindless gibberish as opposed to some sort of real defense of their position.

I do realize that everyone is entitled to a opinion and point of view, (no matter how illogical and incoherent) but there are places for them to go and present those views, and this really isn't the place to do it.

Instead of trying to figure out how the universe was formed or how life came to be why isn't science trying to unlock the parts of the brain that we do not currently use. I have heard from different medical sources that man only uses 10% of his brain through his life time. Maybe just maybe if other parts of the brain were activated man may be able to cure diseases with a thought, or maybe travel through time, or walk through walls, or turn lead into gold, or even control the weather with a thought. The mind is the most powerful force on the face of the earth. By unlocking certain parts maybe man could reverse death or create life and I don't mean in a test tube either. I believe that solving the mysteries of the brain are a billion times more important than how or what or who created the universe or cosmos. Challenge science to work on that and see what we can come up with that is beneficial to mankind in a real sense

@Manguyman: Define what an atheist would believe. Bottom line though; science does not and never will deal in belief systems and apply them to any kind of scientific function, it simply deals with science, so no bias on the part of science when it comes to religion. It would be an oxymoron of sorts for it to even think of science working in tandem with belief systems. Religion has no value when it comes to science because it doesn't deal in measuring, testing and quantifying phyiscal evidence to produce theories.

I am atheist/agnostic, but I don't bash religious beliefs. But I will mention the disingenuousness of those who have religious beliefs trying to apply them to mainstream sciences because they fear for their beliefs.

It is merely the smallest building block

To be precise, the Higgs is about 130 times more massive than the proton. It's not 'small' by any measure - at least not in the realm of particle physics.

Wouldn't a PROTON without its Higg's boson have no mass at all? Perhaps I am confused. Please explain.

And while you are at it, please explain how LFTR technology has not been employed for civilian energy production, even though we have had a working test case at Oak Ridge for 40 years. THORIUM is the world's silver bullet against Global Climate Change and the Petro-political complex is hiding that fact.

Evolution cannot explain a blob of mas evolving into an actual dividing cell...a blob of mass and perfect conditions cannot evolve if it is unable to duplicate itself in order to have a chance to evolve.

Funny how religious nuts demand perfect and absolute proof from science, which readily admits it does not know everything. Meanwhile, the same religious nuts accept as absolute proof a book written by ignorant, superstitious bronze age people who talked to burning bushes and had to cut-off part of their penis as ersatz human sacrifice to please their narcissistic god.

Wouldn't a PROTON without its Higg's boson have no mass at all?

Not really sure how to answer that, Paul.

Particles don't 'contain' Higgs bosons. The Higgs is a force carrier - and particles get their mass by interacting with the Higgs - not by 'containing' one.

And while you are at it, please explain how LFTR technology has not been employed for civilian energy production

There are a few developmental challenges with LFTR tech.

Our experience with large volumes of radioactive molten salts is not huge, but it clearly indicates that everything gets eaten away, valves, pumps, heat exchangers, containers and measuring instruments. Building such a reactor may need a very different design concept, where instead of running a plant for 40 or more years with ongoing maintenance, a three or 5 year and out approach is needed.

Fortunately, the very high precision part of the facility, the turbines, only see clean steam from the secondary heat exchanger, so they could serve for decades as before.

In the 1950s through the 1980s, aircraft engines for example were managed for decades on the basis of a few hundred to a few thousand hours of service life, so the use briefly and throw away approach is clearly feasible. However, it seriously impacts the expected economic benefits a thorium reactor might provide.

Having said all that, the Chinese currently plan to begin work on a thorium reactor in 2015. Other countries, including the U.S., are also taking a hard look at it.

As someone who's been working to bring attention to the dangers of climate change for many years now, I'm very hopeful that we can scale this up - and quickly.

Thank you. Advocates for Thorium reactors are telling a conflicting story about degradation of pipes and valves, etc.

If we are ever going to get this done we have to clear up what we are telling the public. Could this confusion be deliberate? A mixed message works in the petro-dollar-complex's favor.

"J_P_PatchesPal_1

If you pray to the Higgs bison - you will get 3 wishes - but to have to swear to never harm Lord Bison's rocky mountain oysters.

Any time humans gather - no good is going to come from it. One mans flock, is another mans gang."

What a terrible philosophy, pretty much all human achievement resulted from humans gathering together; if you had it your way would we all be cave dwellers living in solitude?

look out neolithic age, we're on our way back!...i can't wait!

Uh Chris- I said :the cheap American Libtard (Libertarian)

Libertarian

not Liberal

It's the thing that gives boobs mass.

AKA, the Godly Heavy Juggs discovery...

It's the part of bosom that is licked to give you access to the Oh my God part.

Boson..."A crew member responsible for keeping the Hull, Rigging and sails in good repair."

Higgs is a lady I hired awhile back to do the above when sailing past the rock known as Uranus.

I just said Uranus........

Tits to a physicist is called quasi particles..or in layman terms 'Cooper pairs'.

As long as they jiggle

That's supersymmetry for you - they always travel in pairs.

It has to do with the whole 'false vacuum bubble' theory, but they didn't even reference it.

Some people where saying before this thing fired up that if they used it it would create a small black hole and destroy the Earth.

those were just the people who didn't know what they were talking about. you know the ones always looking for some doomsday prophecy just like the morons that thought Mayans predicted the end of the world.

...and the assless chaps you're seeking?

Massless drive, I never considered that one-no more "speed limit", very cool

so what good would any of that be if in the process they destroy everything? i guess they're just "hoping" their actions don't destroy the world! just like they did during wwII when they ignited the first atomic bomb even though they thought it may very well ignite the atmosphere killing us all in the process!, yay scientific indiscretion! yay!!!!

Yes, because we all know that's an accurate depiction of physicists.

...says the moran (sic) who can't even capitalize his sentences properly...

What's the matter Homie? Not enough death and destruction in it for you?

Understanding matter could lead to the ability to create matter, like on Star Trek.

We have no idea the possibilities. Many scientific advances that you take for granted every day started with seemingly insignificant discoveries. Fortunately, there were people more farsighted than you to take the discoveries and run with them.

You are not intelligent. Not even a little bit. Don't try to understand this "sciency" stuff. Stick to what you can. May I suggest "The Simpsons"?

"and this is news, because? Does it solve hunger in Third-World countries? End drought? End cancers of all types? No." - Homie

Well then, Homie, let's just eliminate anything and everything that does not proclaim a cure for cancer, drought and world hunger. Then we would have... Nothing at all. Pure genius.

Homie,

That's exactly what they said about the space program in the late 50's through the 70's. And during that time we got weather satelites that do help predict droughts, save millions of lives by forcasting hurricanes and other atmospheric events. We have GPS that allows our ships, planes, and cars to navigate to a precision of a few feet. We have communication networks that allow us to communicate around the globe in real time. We have Teflon for cooking pans and artificial heart valves, better insulations for houses, etc, etc...

So we've been down your road before. And scientific research allways yields numerious benefits. What specific benefits we can't say right now because, hell if we knew what we were looking for, we'd have it already.

And Homie SHOULD play that.

Outside of the science world, this really is not big news. Until there is some new break through discovery to come from this, it's sort of pointless.

And I love the Trekies on here who believe that the stuff portrayed on that show are true.

Jason, your statement speaks volumes..."outside of the science world"...If you don't think that science is important you are truly on the wrong side.

Wad, this is big for a minority of scientists. When it becomes big for the modern world, then we'll give a damn.

Jason and Manguyman,

You two can feel free to remain in your bubbles and wait until "some new break through" comes from this, but those of us who love learning for the sake of learning will continue to give a damn. And if you're not interested, why did you even read the article?

Oh, and Jason, the Star Trek reference, although tongue-in-cheek, also has a point. Since you have no interest in science until it benefits you, I'll let you know that there are people out there who are working towards warp drive and teleportation (beam me up?).

Hambone totally agree except teleportation has already happened not with humans but now it is hung up in a ethics debate because some say the once you are ripped apart at the atomic level are you truly the same person you were before teleportation. So yes to all you naysayers not only is it possible but probable.

Exactly. Even if God does exist, until he decides to get involved with his 'creation', he might as well not exist.

With all due respect all of this is just an educated guess....unless you personally watched the Big Bang and have film of it.

Do you?

Didn't think so.

Let me add that creationism and evolution can be part of the same event.

fujismith-2751454,

If someone did provide proof, humanity would only crucify him again.

I have film of the big bang. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Edna, yes we do have film of the big bang. Scuba is correct.

The problem with the argument that "The universe requires a creator" is who created the creator? So that line of reasoning loops back on itself. All creationists can say is "God was allways there", which explains nothing at all. I can say the universe was allways here. The primary difference is we can test my theory, but not yours.

Wow!! There was a camera there filming the Big Bang? I didn't think cameras were invented until much later. And of course it all came out of nothing......like magic. Impressive.

Let me add that creationism and evolution can be part of the same event.

Actually, no. Because evolution does not describe creation in any way. You have to understand the science before you can seriously argue it.

Edna453

Wow!! There was a camera there filming the Big Bang? I didn't think cameras were invented until much later. And of course it all came out of nothing......like magic. Impressive.

Define "Nothing".

What this experiment shows is that a certain type of energy can gain mass and become something as opposed to nothing.

Now how it gains this mass and where it gains it from is a question, but then yes, something from nothing.

As far as your camera comment. We have a few and if you understood stars, distance, light speed, and the such, then you would understand that we do, in a way, have a camera looking at it.

Atheists believe you can. Its part of their faith.

Atheists don't have a faith. Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of one.

HeWillRuleAsGodYouMadeUp: Atheists don't have a faith. Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of one. What atheists do believe is what they can observe through scientific method. Faith is merely a belief with no basis in fact.

Oh and halnmar: Energy isn't made. It's transformed.

Why do religious people have to be so damn ignorant? Wait a minute. I just answered my own question.

Something comes from nothing all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

And coyoteugly can make an anti-liberal comment out of anything. Probably even grocery lists...

Says the simpleton.

The core belief of religious people is that god came out of nothing to create everything else. The Atheist simply does not believe that the being that came out of the nothingness to create the universe exists. Even if you accept that the universe was "created", it does not follow that the creator is a god. Mankind has created many new species of animals and plants by tinkering with what we have on hand, and it does not follow that we are gods. The creator, or creators, of the universe (a race of giants, certainly) might have created it by experimentation or by accident. Then they forgot about it and died.

I thought christians believe god made something out of nothing. Don't you ever read the book that describes the crap you profess to believe in?

jbunn... devout Christians like those we find here? You're kidding right? That's what they have Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin for... who needs to read the Good Book when there's such iconic interpreters out there?

There is no thing that is nothing.

So Halnmar, is "god" something or nothing?

Its the only way they could get us lemmings to read this article was to "doom and gloom"

the black holes that have been created are so tiny they dissipate almost instantly so you have no reason to be uncomfortable

Just shows how much the state run media hates religion

State run media hating on a state run religion. What an oxymoron.

Yeah, bright boy, that's why they have about a half-dozen articles on the papal elevation running concurrently, because they hate religion. Sheesh, are you RWNJs even trying anymore?...

Oh right! As if all forms of media HAVEN'T obsessed over every bit of pope minutia over the past few weeks!

Seriously, JPM?

Have you watched the news lately? You can't get away from the damned pope. The front page on NBC had no less than 8 stories about him when I logged on this morning.

......and they will weep and gnash their teeth in their end days. The old order of fraudulent religions is on the wane.

F Villar:

YOU WROTE: "Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best - “The more I learn about the universe, the less convinced I am that there's any sort of benevolent force that has anything to do with it, at all.”

MY RESPONSE: That's funny because a couple of other scientists who are historical icons (unlike Mr. Tyson) said this:

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man…In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” (Albert Einstein)

“A little bit of science averts people from God, a lot of it takes us back to Him.” (Louis Pasteur)

Rhonda,

But neither of those guys know what Neil knows. There's been decades of discovery since Einstein's death.

@Rhonda Lucky-296458, Shame on you. You edit the quote (a letter of correspondence) to support what you want others to think. Let the quote speak for itself in factual context. Here's the full quote of Einstein's letter, for those how care to hear facts:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

hambone johnson:

It's equally possible that Neil doesn't know/understand the FULL EXTENT of what Einstein and Pasteur knew/learned.

E_Fail:

I have no problem with the full quote attributed to Einstein, so I don't understand what your beef is. I know Einstein didn't believe in a PERSONAL God and probably didn't think that prayer was meaningful. However, he did conclude (as your comment indicates) that a superior spiritual being of some sort exists, which was his intuitive feeling/matter of faith. And I agree with his assessment. In fact, I take my belief one step further and call that superior spiritual being "God."

So, I still stand by the words of Einstein, whom I quoted, as well as the words of Louis Pateur, whom I also quoted.

Rhonda Lucky-296458 - However, he did conclude (as your comment indicates) that a superior spiritual being of some sort exists, which was his intuitive feeling/matter of faith.

Not really, especially if you're at all familiar with Einstein's other statements. He was an atheist in the modern sense, or at most sympathetic to the notion of "Spinoza's god"......a non-sentient, non-personal, non-god (at least in the sense you mean "god"). Your notion of a "superior spiritual being" is something you're imposing on Einstein.

So, I still stand by the words of Einstein, whom I quoted, as well as the words of Louis Pateur, whom I also quoted.

Sounds like a fallacious appeal to authority.

The Higgs-boson particle has proven that energy is at the foundation of everything. Therefore everything is equal to energy to the exponent of infinity (i.e. Everything=E^∞). Despite this monumental advance, we know less than ever. Our universe comprises of 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter. We can only comprehend the 3.6% of intergalactic gas as well as the 0.4% that makes up everything else in our ever-expanding universe. However, in spite of that overwhelming ignorance of 96%, there are many out there that are 100% positive that a god does not exist. Their definition of a deity is lacking and that is exactly the reason that they are able to discredit the existence of a supreme being. Many prominent scientists today, still think God is Zeus sitting on a mythological throne. However, as our understanding of the universe increases, so do the bounds of an infinite consciousness.
In string theory, branes and strings dwell in "The Bulk." This theory has transformed science into philosophy. As we live in a space-time universe, our ability to break our limits and move into other dimensions is virtually, if not entirely, impossible. Therefore, understanding "The Bulk" will never be realized.
This is exactly how Christianity describes God. What scientists equate as the "The Bulk", Catholics believe that "God dwells in a light beyond our means of access." Where string theory predicts that everything is made up stands and branes of energy, the Christian faiths believe that "In [God] all things hold together.”
Semantics and wording separates what scientists endeavour to discover and what Christians believe through faith. God is Love. Love is energy. Energy is at the fundamental core of all of us and of everything else.

skrekk:

I think you're wrong about Einstein's spiritual beliefs. Many who knew him thought he was a Pantheist and/or a believer of Spinoza's impersonal God, of which BOTH suspicions seem compatible. Einstein believed that a superior, spiritual being (which I call "God") created the universe, then in an impersonal way (as in Spinoza's God) lets the universe run by itself. The theory is like a watch-maker who builds a watch, then lets it run by itself rather than getting involved in the day-to-day workings of the mechanism he built.

With all with that being said, there's still no doubt that Einstein did say, "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man…In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”

And Louis Pasteur did say, “A little bit of science averts people from God, a lot of it takes us back to Him.”

So, I think I'll let the readers make their own decision about the exact meaning of BOTH quotes. It's not too difficult to determine what those words mean.

The "watchmaker" analogy flies out the window when you then believe that he sacrificed his only son for our sins and will then return for the battle of Armageddon followed by the Rapture. That is a lot of meddling in the workings of a timepiece and a huge case of micro-managment when you consider the size of Earth compared to the rest of the universe. Why would he be so obsessed with us?

Paul:

YOU WROTE: "The 'watchmaker' analogy flies out the window when you then believe that he sacrificed his only son for our sins and will then return for the battle of Armageddon followed by the Rapture. That is a lot of meddling in the workings of a timepiece and a huge case of micro-managment when you consider the size of Earth compared to the rest of the universe. Why would he be so obsessed with us?"

MY RESPONSE: You're mixing apples and oranges here. I was merely describing the suspected religious belief of Albert Einstein regarding the connection between a creator and the universe. Nothing Einstein said and nothing in my belief system is rooted in Holy Scripture if that's what you're alluding to.

I think Einstein believed that a Supreme Being created the universe and then let it run itself (the watchmaker analogy). Apparently, he belived in an impersonal God (like Spinoza did). I am a deist who firmly believes in God, but is not wedded to any particular religion or to any particular scriptural passages. So, I can't answer your question because it isn't relevant to anything I posted. In other words, your assumption that Einstein and myself believe in Armageddon or the Rapture is a faulty assumption. Anyone can believe in God without automatically believing in Armageddon or the Rapture.

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Albert Einstein, letter sent to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind, 1954

Not that it matters - I just like facts.

Phycicist Retired:

Albert Einstein also said this:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details."

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."

"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."

"When the answer is simple, God is speaking."

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Not that it matters - I just like facts, too.

Physicist Retired:

Oh, I forgot to add that anyone can believe in God WITHOUT being an advocate or defender of the Bible. So, just because Einstein criticized the Bible doesn't detract in any way from his belief in God. After all, I don't think Muslims (who believe in God) are admirers of the Bible.

Thank you for your input Rhonda, you are indeed someone who is well knowledged , and seems to be on top of things.

I hope you stay around in these threads and many others. We need more people who speak truth and not this rip out of context , and swap words around, to make people of our past mean something they are didnt.

Keep up the Good work.

He evolved from a giant cosmic orangutan?

Paul:

YOU ASKED: "Who created the creator?"

MY RESPONSE: The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive God to be a physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to common sense.

Obviously, the logical concept of God has to be that He is a spiritual entity. He exists outside of the three-dimensional material world we live in. In other words, He has to exist outside of time and matter because He created time and matter. And if He is the Creator of time and matter, He obviously was not created. God began the beginning! If God is a being that is unlimited in time, and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The problem is like asking a student to draw a four-sided triangle. The terminology is self-contradictory.

Explained in another way, if you ask where God came from, that is a tricky question because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. But the question itself doesn’t make sense. It’s like asking, “What does the color blue smell like?”…or “How much does the number seven weigh?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, and seven is not in the category of things that can be weighed, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncreated and uncaused - He simply exists.

How do we know God is uncreated and uncaused? Well, we already know that “nothing comes from nothing” (First Law of Thermodynamics) in our material world. But material things do exist, so they had to come from somewhere. Therefore, something non-material had to have always been in existence so that material things could be brought into existence. The answer to this dilemma lies in the spiritual world: that ever-existing thing which brought material things into existence is what we call God (a spirit). God is the uncaused eternal Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Or, as Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused. Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin. Ironically, a non-material, eternal first cause is the only feasible answer to this dilemma and it perfectly fits the dictionary definition (and Biblical description) of God.

I hope that helps.

How do you know there hasn't always been energy? As far as we know, time began with the universe, so before the universe, there was no time, therefore, no nothing.

hambone johnson:

YOU ASKED: "How do you know there hasn't always been energy?"

MY RESPONSE: As I understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy isn't eternal. It came from somewhere and is winding down (a condition incompatible with eternity).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder, or a condition known as entropy. If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter (a loss of energy called “heat death”). If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and never uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performance of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level where less and less energy is available for use. Albert Einstein called the Second Law of Thermodynamics “the premier law of science” upon which all other processes are based.

The fact that the universe is winding down, or moving towards disorder, is self-evident in a myriad of ways right here on earth. Our daily experiences tell us that things can only move to a state of increased complexity with the addition of controlled energy and intelligent guidance, such as when we turn a pile of bricks into a building. Natural processes will do the opposite – tear buildings down, not build them up. The same is true for life in general. Mistakes and extinctions are happening all around us, whereas new life forms are not developing; life is heading in the direction of increasing disorder. This means there must have been more order in the past. So, where did the original state of extreme high order originate? The most sensible path of reasoning leads to God!

When applied to the entire universe, the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that everything is winding down, i.e. moving toward disorder or entropy, not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up” at some point in time. Since the universe is constantly winding down, the Second Law of Thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who or what wound it up? Once again, the most plausible answer is God!

Finally, let me ask you this question: How can any clear-thinking person believe that NOTHING working on behalf of NOTHING for NOTHING through NOTHING created EVERYTHING? That requires exponentially more faith than a belief in God.

hambone johnson:

Here's my parting thought:

You’ve got to wonder where all the laws of physics and mathematics, which govern the universe, came from in the first place. Those laws had to predate every material substance and every associated process that brought the universe into existence and made it what it is today. In addition, those laws are so complex that scientists have been studying them for millennia, but still don’t fully comprehend them. I think that’s where a spiritual Supreme Being (God) comes into play, because some sort of incredibly intelligent mind had to create the laws that govern our universe. And those laws did not evolve; they apply to the past just as they apply to the present and will apply to the future because without this belief, science would be impossible. So where did these laws come from? Did they just pop out of thin air? The atheists and secular scientists have no adequate explanation.

The most plausible explanation for the existence of the laws of physics and mathematics is that they originated from an incomprehensibly intelligent Creator, a spiritual being we call God. In fact, here's what Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said about the topic: "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle." Long before that, Galileo opined the following about mathematics: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe."

Finally, God’s existence is clearly indicated by an honest examination of the Argument from Design, two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis, clues from the Fossil Record, the Existence of Conscience, and the Wisdom of the Ages. I cannot explain each of those topics on this thread because that would require too much space and, besides, that would stray too far from the title of this newsvine article. So, I'll leave it at that.

Fascinating, Rhonda Lucky...post some more!

I think it can be argued that this "laws of the universe" being created by any one or any thing is - well - anthropomorphic in a sense. Without Earth the universe will still function. Humans observing the workings of the Universe and quantifying it with math hardly requires a god. Asking where the laws "came from in the first place" - they simply existing as a symptom of a universe that would allow the existance of a biological system that could evolve to a point of doing math, calling observations "laws", and almost understanding the "rules". Nature isn't mathmatical - it can be described by math. It's a tool - nothing more regardless of how fascinating it is. It allows us to understand and predict beyond observation and intuition. But might possibly limit us too. Newtons math was right for a while. But saying because we can't understand something then it must be the creation of a god - that's arrogant. WE are less than a speck of dust in the cosmos.

Rhonda Lucky-296458 - Obviously, the logical concept of God has to be that He is a spiritual entity.

What does the word "spiritual" mean? Is there any evidence for "spiritual entities"? Are they heavy?

He exists outside of the three-dimensional material world we live in. In other words, He has to exist outside of time and matter because He created time and matter.

How then does your imaginary friend interact with the universe? What's the mechanism for that interaction?

Rhonda Lucky-"Mistakes and extinctions are happening all around us, whereas new life forms are not developing; life is heading in the direction of increasing disorder."
Here's hoping that Rhonda is right about new life forms from her particular lineage.

Finally, a good informative argument. Rhonda, you're wrong Skrekk is right but I appreciate the effort. Just sayin, in blogspeak.

If energy cannot be destroyed, then it is eternal.

Let me address this comment to those on this thread who are interested in a serious, civil discussion about a Supreme Creator. But as far as the name-callers, hate-mongers, and anti-religion bigots are concerned, their shortcomings indicate to me that they've already lost the debate.

For those who require more technically-oriented proof that the universe isn’t eternal, consider this: the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie brought forth the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. But as it decomposes, it attains a new weight of 226.0, which is when uranium becomes radium. Radium then decomposes until eventually the end product becomes a heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, radium turns into lead in only 1,590 years. That means there was a point in time when uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. The only logical conclusion is that there had to be a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others - could not have existed forever. This represents measurable scientific proof that matter has not always existed!

In addition, I think I've already shown that energy has not always existed either. In other words, the First Law of Thermodynamics simply says that “nothing comes from nothing” in the material world. So, all who state that the universe came into existence by itself from nothing violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin, i.e. a specific moment when it was created by an all-powerful spirit because whatever created the universe could not have been material.

Through your own efforts, try building something from nothing. In a hundred lifetimes of trying, you will never be able to produce a single thing from nothing. Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the universe, with all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest and accept facts. This is strong evidence that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Supernatural Supreme Being! Nevertheless, evolutionary atheists claim that nothing working on behalf of nothing for nothing through nothing created everything. How convincing is that?

Also, consider which alternative seems more logical: mind came before matter OR matter came before mind. I think it's more likely that mind came before matter, which is another clue for the existence of a Supreme Being who created the universe. Put another way, what inanimate material exists which can eventually morph into a person with morals, compassion, and cognitive reasoning ability? Is it realistic to conclude that a thinking person ultimately resulted from pond slime?

Furthermore, the Law of Biogenesis states that "life only comes from other life." This law is so fundamental that Simpson and Beck’s biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology states, “There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.” In fact, Louis Pasteur, after debunking the theory that microorganisms can arise spontaneously, has this popular saying attributed to his legacy: “Spontaneous generation is a dream.”

Presumably, God can achieve phenomenal accomplishments because He has no known constraints. Even modern physics concedes that the laws of physics do not apply beyond the natural world, i.e. there are no laws of physics that operate in the spiritual world where God resides. Since God made the universe, He also made the laws of physics, so it’s logical to assume that He can alter/suspend those laws on occasion if/when He chooses. That probably explains how God created the primordial soup (the material ingredients of the universe) from nothing (thus, successfully defying the First Law of Thermodynamics), then propelled matter into its present arrangement via “The Big Bang.” That may also explain how Jesus Christ reportedly performed miracles on earth, such as walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, changing water into wine, etc. Such miracles would have been child’s play for a being who created the universe and all the laws that govern it.

Therefore, the reason that God is exempt from all the laws of physics and nature is because He exists outside of time and matter, i.e. in the spiritual world. God has always existed, and He did things before time began. He not only began time, but He will also end it. When time ends, all matter and all mankind will enter eternity, a timeless condition free of the negative things that time brings upon us now.

In summary, many attributes of the creator remain unknown or hidden, but there are some conclusions that we can reasonably draw from what we know. As the universe was produced by a creative act, it is reasonable to infer that it was produced by some sort of mind; mind is logically the origin of matter rather than the other way around. As the universe comprises the totality of nature, its creator must necessarily be outside nature. As the creator used no natural laws or forces to create the universe, the creator is clearly supernatural. As space and time are within the universe, the creator must be outside space and time, which is to say eternal. As the universe is material, the creator must be non-material, which is to say, spiritual. As the universe was created from nothing, the creator is incomprehensibly powerful or, as far as we can determine, omnipotent.

Now my detractors can begin their barrage of hate-laced, snide remarks, which I promise to ignore. However, I will continue to participate in discussions with those who have something of substance to contribute.

There are no laws of physics in the spiritual world........so there is no logical reason to believe that there is or was only one creator of our universe, or only one universe for that matter.

On the physical level. Is everything that is lead now something that used to be radium in the past? Is everything that is now radium degraded uranium?

If lead is now inert, doers that mean that its electrons will one day cease to orbit its atomic nuclei? Will its atomic particles cease to exist along with its subatomic particles?

Rhonda,

You missed my point. Whether or not energy is eternal, when time stops, so does everything. When energy dissipates or whatever, there will no longer be time. Therefore, energy is eternal and there is no need for a creator.

Also, there are many suggestions that you can, in fact, make something out of nothing. It has something to do with quantum mechanics (as subject in which I'll admit vast ignorance). But many physicists can easily see a Universe from nothing without a god.

Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean they're not out there, nor does it make the answer, "god."

hambone johnson:

YOU WROTE: "...there are many suggestions that you can, in fact, make something out of nothing. It has something to do with quantum mechanics (as subject in which I'll admit vast ignorance). But many physicists can easily see a Universe from nothing without a god."

MY RESPONSE: The key word in your comment is "suggestions", which is different from proof. By definition, a law of science is only established when no exceptions are found after years of study. Hence, the First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Matter and energy can only be transformed from one form to another. For example, matter can be converted from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again. Energy such as sunlight can be converted to heat or matter (photosynthesis), and energy from fossil fuel can be converted into electricity. But matter and energy cannot be created from nothing or completely destroyed.

That concept may be difficult for the average person to understand. But for our purposes in this discussion, the First Law of Thermodynamics simply says that “nothing comes from nothing” in the material world. So, all who state that the universe came into existence by itself from nothing violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

With regard to your statement that it might be possible to make something out of nothing (according to quantum mechanics) I think there's a major problem with that concept. My rebuttal to that concept is a bit lengthy, so please stay with me as I try my best to use every-day language to make my point.

Space is not “nothing.” It is something, just as much as clouds, sunlight, and air are something. If space were really nothing, we wouldn’t be able to measure it. When we measure the volume of an “empty” room, we’re really measuring the amount of space within it.

Space has properties. For example, it has three dimensions. This means I can move through space in three independent ways (up and down, left and right, forwards and backward). Any other movement is some combination of these three directions.

Einstein showed that space and time are interdependent. That is, space and time are both parts of a single structure, which we call "spacetime." Einstein realized that our measurements of distances in space and intervals of time are affected by motion (this is especially evident as one approaches the speed of light).

According to quantum physics, at the very smallest scales, spacetime is constantly producing and destroying extremely low-mass particles called “virtual particles.” Sometimes atheists argue that these particles demonstrate that something can come from nothing. But hopefully it is now clear that these particles do not show any such thing. Virtual particles are produced from spacetime – not from nothing.

In other words, material objects require spacetime in order to exist. Any physical object has a location in space and time. So, in one sense, spacetime is like a grid with physical objects located within it. However, Einstein found that any physical object (mass) distorts the grid. Matter “bends” spacetime, and spacetime tells matter how to move.

So, even when you THINK that something can come from nothing, that "nothing" is actually something.

YOU ALSO WROTE: "Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean they're not out there, nor does it make the answer, 'god.'"

MY RESPONSE: That's the classic "God of the Gaps" argument/complaint. But the God of the gaps is also the God of the facts, i.e. intelligent design REQUIRES an intelligent designer; the universe REQUIRES a cause; all life comes from other life; the fossil record comprises a clue of a creator; and morals and conscience can’t evolve from pond slime. Those are the FACTS!

Also, there are many suggestions that you can, in fact, make something out of nothing. It has something to do with quantum mechanics (as subject in which I'll admit vast ignorance). But many physicists can easily see a Universe from nothing without a god.

Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean they're not out there, nor does it make the answer, "god."

Im ignorant too hambone, but there is one thing i know.. There is no time when nothing existed because if nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. There had to be something, and that something points to God.

I hear the main stream naturalistic world view always saying things like, look at the miller urey experiment where life was made..

Well that again shows to me proof of an intelligent designer.

First it takes a lot of assumptions to claim that the perfect X amount of compounds were present. Now this is not based on Observational empirical evidence. Its based off of assumptions.

Second, the mere fact that Scientists ( intelligence ) took compounds that already exist in the present to try to make life by zapping primordial ooze shows nothing less than a Creator. These compounds didnt form out of thin air.

Science has a lot of explaining to do, but it cant.
Im not impressed with the Higgs Boson because its scientists using something that exists, using equipment, they are making things happen.. This sounds like God.. God makes things happen. LD

Marmaduke49:

Nicely stated post. I'm familair with the Miller-Urey experiment.

A number of efforts have been made to bring life from non-life, but there has been no success. A man named J.B. Burke attempted to produce small living cells from inorganic matter by means of radium, but was unsuccessful; the "radiobes" produced were merely bursting gas bubbles of microscopic size. Eduard Pfluger produced cyanic acid, which he compared to half-living molecules, but that was merely a nonliving chemical compound.

A Russian scientist, Alexander Oparin, suggested that we need to understand that the conditions on earth at the time of the origin of life must have been very different from how they are today, which presupposed that life formed spontaneously. Consequently, the Miller-Urey experiment was claimed to confirm Oparin's hypothesis by producing some of the organic components of life, from an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but in fact it did not confirm anything because the basic amino acids formed in Miller's test tube were quickly destroyed by the atmosphere required to make them.

Thus far, life has not been observed to be created without outside intelligence forcing environmental conditions necessary for life, so spontaneous generation/abiogenesis seems unlikely to have ever occurred.

A famous Dutch botanist, Hugo deVries, best explained the problem by stating, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."

The problem here is that all your rebuttals, while well thought out and well supported, still assume that because we haven't proven it yet, it must have been god.

That's called a "god of the gaps" and it is an ever shrinking god.

We used to not know where humans came from. Now, with the theory of evolution, we know and god became a little smaller. And it keeps happening. The more we learn, the smaller god becomes. Once we do figure out abiogenesis, god will shrink again. Same goes for the beginnings of the Universe. And if we ever do figure that out, god will be far to small to matter; smaller than the Higgs boson.

As far as "suggestions" go, you are aware that that's how it all starts, with hypotheses that are tested again and again until you have a Theory, which describes a Law. So these first attempts to understand are just the beginning.

hambone johnson:

My belief in God is ONLY PARTIALLY ROOTED in "the God of the gaps" concept. I must have said and written the following countless times during my adult life: I base my arguments for the existence of God strictly on science, logic, philosophy, and common sense. I try to use simple language, understandable analogies, and instructive quotations from renowned experts in science and other disciplines to support my arguments.

So, let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time: While the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically in a laboratory, there are enough clues to conclude that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the existence of God is clearly indicated by an honest examination of the Argument from Design, two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis, clues from the Fossil Record, the Existence of Conscience, and the Wisdom of the Ages. These arguments collectively provide enough of a starting point to rightly conclude that a Higher Being of some kind exists.

So, my belief in God is rooted in a host of disciplines rather than just ONE avenue of thought. As I've stated in an earlier comment, I cannot explain each of the clues for the existence of God listed in the previous paragraph because that would require too much space on this thread. But I assure you that my belief in God resulted from a wide diversity of scientific findings, philosophical concepts, logical conclusions, and just plain common sense observations.

I don't see how the arguments you listed provide "enough of a starting point to rightly conclude that a Higher Being of some kind exists." But I will admit I may not be as well versed in them as you, so I cannot deny your belief. As a matter of fact, I don't entirely dismiss the idea of a natural god of some sort.

But from what I know of your arguments and what I understand of human learning and progress, I come to a different conclusion and do not agree with you.

I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thank you for the discussion. You definitely gave me some things to think about.

hambone johnson:

My intent is not to change anyone's belief system regarding a Supreme Creator; we all have our own opinions, which I respect as long as they are based on something reasonable and/or substantive. In fact, I'm usually appalled by believers who base their beliefs on the premise that "I was just brought up that way" (suggesting that they never even bothered to search for clues about the origin of the universe or the existence of a Creator).

So, I posted SOME of the conclusions I made about the existence of God just to advance the discussion beyond the Sesame Street type of bickering, which consists of an endless stream of "God really exists; No He doesn't!" The bottom line is that the readers of this thread can make their own decisions based upon what has been posted OR use the posted information as a springboard for further investigation.

A comprehensive explanation for my belief in a Suprem Creator requires 16 pages of text (I wrote it down a few years ago). And I'm still finding new clues.

Well, thank you. My intent is also not to change anyone's belief system. Generally, I couldn't care less. But sometimes I like to discuss and even argue the points. And like I said, the points you made were interesting and definitely something to think about.

We used to not know where humans came from. Now, with the theory of evolution,

It depends on what part of the theory you are referring to. We all may not agree with this next part, you me and rhonda , that is evolution to the point of simple matter evolving over X amount of time into human beings through a long process.

Now, me personally, I dont think there is enough evidence to support man coming from apes. I am very familiar with Australopithecus afarensis ( lucy ) and other popular fossils. Once again I have found over the years that presumptions play a huge part in theory and thinking.

But lets say for a minute we did come from apes, or even if thats not the right saying now, from a common ancestor.. what ever that ancestor may be, then what were we before these common ancestors ? Full apes ? IF so what were we before apes ? Birds , fish, worms ? Where is the complete fossil record that shows all the transitional species from Goo to human ? Also show any example of how genetic information is gained over time that takes us from simple pile of goo to human beings ..

Another thing to add, if evolution is an on going thing, then where are these transitional beings ( like half ape, half human ) beings at now ? I mean if Evolution is this on going process then there should be staggered transitional forms that are int he process of turning into humans.

Also did it stop with us humans ? What are we turning into next ? As far back as our history go as humans, there doesnt seem to be one bit of change.

The only changes that are visible are variations with in a species to adapt to its environment. Like Darwins Finches on the Galapos Island, we see Evolution at its best here. Beak variations to adapt to the environment so they could survive and eat. Thing is when conditions went back to normal, beaks did too. How ever, regardless of beak size, and beak color, they are still finches. They didnt turn into lizards, or fish.. They stayed as birds.

YOu are right about Hypothesis, which really boggles my mind about the entire Macro evolution chain. How is this a thing that is testable ? I have been debating this for about 20 years now, and not once have a had a scientist, or person or anyone show me the step by step process of goo to human macro evolution, no fossil record to back it up, nothing to test to show its validity. So I will call it evolution hypotheses.

I dont see God shrinking, if anything I see him growing. As we see how more and more complex everything is in the universe, and then toss in the history of the bible, events that took place, prophecies fulfilled ect ect .. This is all evidence. Just like you have evidence for your naturalistic world views, we have our evidence for God and the Bible. Whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice, just as I have a choice to believe in your religion of Naturalism - Uniformitarianism.

If there wasnt a bible that recorded history, and extra biblical documents from other than the bible then yes I may be skeptical of what I believe, but the history is there. Also what I have experienced spiritually, and what I have seen God do in many peoples lives, and from hearing testimonies of others lives, it just makes my belief stronger, and then when the bible talks about events that we see going on today, and how people will mock and ridicule us like they did Jesus, yes it increases my faith even more.

Marmaduke49:

I agree with much of what you posted about evolution. However, I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I cannot comment judiciously on what the Bible says, means, or implies about evolution. Gee, I have problems trying to detrmine which passages are literal and which passages are metaphors. Nevertheless, I still admire the nuggets of wisdom contained in that revered book.

With regard to evolution, I think we're probably on the same page. I certainly believe in micro-evolution (transitions within a kind) because I see it everywhere every day. But I don't believe in macro-evolution (transitions across species and phyla) because that's never been seen, even in the fossil record.

Nevertheless, some folks repeatedly claim that the fossil record has plenty of transitional examples (I assume they mean ACROSS species) for us to see in any museum. But that simply isn’t true.

Stephen Jay Gould, professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his death, confessed that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” He noted that “The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis (or non-change). Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

Consider that the trilobite has one of the most complex eyes in the world. Why are there no ancestors with a less developed eye? We find tons of these fossils, so we should therefore find tons of ancestors in older strata. But we don't. There is absolutely no excuse why we should not find ancestors to these remarkably complex creatures. Macro-evolutionists can only present feeble excuses as to why those ancestors are not found.

In addition, Steven M. Stanley (paleontologist and geology teacher), formerly of Johns Hopkins University, asserted that “…the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

I recently purchased the book Rare Earth written by evolutionists Dr. Peter Ward (geological sciences) and Dr. Donald Brownlee (Astronomy). Note what they have to say in the chapter titled 'The Enigma of the Cambrian Explosion':

"Undoubted fossils of metazoan (multicellular) animals have never been found in 600-million-year-old sedimentary strata, no matter where on Earth we go. Yet the fossils of such animals are both diverse and abundant in 500-million-year-old rocks, and they include representatives of most of the animal phyla still found on Earth." (emphasis mine)

"...This observation suggests that animals of staggering complexity appeared on Earth without evolutionary precursors. It is as though an orchestra began playing without sounding a single tone to tune up"

"For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution" (emphasis mine)

Of course mutations arise, and of course a wide variety of alleles can be expressed. The Creator unquestionably programmed each kind or creature the capability to adapt under various conditions. But there are clear barriers to variation. That is why birds remain birds, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, people remain people, apes remain apes, and fruit flies remain fruit flies.

Whenever we discuss evolution, Gregor Mendel's laws of genetics (with slight modern-day refinements) explain the physical variations observed in all living things. Mendel's laws show that there is no problem explaining how the great variations could have developed in skin, hair, eye color, facial structure, and body size within the human family beginning from just one man and one woman. Mendel discovered that a gene (unit of heredity) is merely reshuffled from one generation to the next. It's a proven fact that reproduction produces different COMBINATIONS of genes, but NEVER DIFFERENT GENES. Put another way, you can use letters in the word “Christmas” to make offshoot words, such as has, mist, Sam, ram, sat, mat, etc., but you CANNOT make entirely new, completely unrelated words such as Xerox, Zebra, or Queen. That’s just common sense.

Evolution requires new and useful genes, but such new information is not created by random recombinations of information within existing genes. This has never been observed by scientific experimentation. Different gene combinations produce the many variations within each "kind" of life (such as the wide variation within the dog "kind"), BUT A NEW CLASS OF ANIMAL HAS NEVER BEEN PRODUCED. It is a fact of science, demonstrated by Gregor Mendel's experiments, that there are limits to variation. Breeding experiments and common observations confirm these boundaries.

But whether or not anyone accepts such truths is not my concern.

Stephen Jay Gould, professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his death, confessed that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” He noted that “The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis (or non-change). Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

I am very familiar with Proffesor Gould, and his wording was very interesting to say the least.

As for the bible, I also agree with you, for the average laymen it is hard to determine what is literal wording, metaphor, narrative, parables ect ect .

Im not a theologian myself, but I do know what what websites to go to when i need answers to the questions people try to pound me with.

Biggest thing about understanding the bible, is that it was written for people at a time in the past, where laws, customs, wording, meanings all of that differ greatly from today.

Common topic is slavery. When you say that word today Im sure most of us, the first thing we think of are Black slaves we had here in america.. But im sure no one thinks about chinese slaves, or irish slaves. With that aside, that kind of slavery was nothing like slavery of the past. They just didnt mean the same thing nor were lifestyles the same.

Any how thats a long and in depth topic I dont see a need to get into here. I was busy debating that with someone in another thread I think.

This is another opinion of mine. Evidence doesnt speak for itself, it needs people to speak for it.

Just like if we were to walk into a room and seen a glass sitting there that was half way filled with water. We can start making conclusions.. was the glass full at one time and it was emptied, or was it empty one time and someone filled it half way. No one was there to witness the event, but assumptions could be true, but no one would know.

We have many things like this. Fossils in places they shouldnt be, or food in the bellies of animals who are in a place where such food would not be. Lots of water over small time, little water over long time , both can carve away at soil and rock.

Its all about perspective.

Sorry, I do not discuss evolution with people who clearly do not understand it and are religiously motivated to remain ignorant.

Marmaduke49:

You know what? I used to be skeptical about the existence of God until I read some stunning news about Professor Anthony Flew, a world-class atheist philosopher who renounced his atheism in 2004 and proclaimed (in so many words) that the existence of God is REQUIRED to explain the universe and all the natural wonders in it. That transformation is comparable to Bill Maher announcing that he will become a Catholic priest. So, I wondered what Anthony Flew found out that was so momentous; in other words, what discovery moved Mr. Flew to change his belief from one “extreme” (atheism) to the other (theism)?

When I investigated this a little further, I learned that advancements in science, ESPECIALLY REGARDING DNA, were primarily what swayed Mr. Flew towards his new-found belief in a deity. Here’s what Mr. Flew declared: "[In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms…What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

Spurred on by Mr. Flew’s intriguing testimony, I began to read more about DNA and found some interesting facts I hadn’t known before. But first, it’s important to understand that all instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. That being said, in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program. As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. THERE ARE THREE BILLION OF THESE LETTERS IN EVERY HUMAN CELL!! DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It’s a full instruction manual.

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that actively supervise in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop. Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instructions, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

In a related, thought-provoking comment, Charles B. Thaxton (who holds a PhD in Chemistry and is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University) wrote that “…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.”

In every day terms, if the chemical formula for a drug that cures cancer is written down one day, all the authorities would join forces to identify the discoverers and even give them an award. Nobody would wonder if that formula was the result of ink being spilled on the page. Any rational mind would think that it could only have been written by someone with expertise in chemistry, physiology, oncology (the branch of medicine that studies cancer) and pharmacology (the branch that studies drugs). So, why doesn’t the same common sense logic apply to the DNA message in our cells, i.e. the source of the message is an intelligent being (God)?

Finally, I won’t get caught up in any squabbling about the true meaning of specific passages in the Bible or the resulting nit-picking debates that usually don’t get resolved anyway. Some of those debates are like arguing about the difference between the words “farther” and “further”…who cares? I doubt that Anthony Flew ever got bogged down in such heated quarrels, which often become dead-end streets or avenues of distraction from what’s really important. I did what Anthony Flew did, i.e. looked at a plethora of emerging scientific facts. Many of those facts (which I alluded to in earlier comments) point to the existence of God. That’s what motivated me to become a believer.

hambone johnson

Sorry, I do not discuss evolution with people who clearly do not understand it and are religiously motivated to remain ignorant.

Sorry you feel that way hambone. I do indeed understand Evolution. The word itself means nothing more than change. SO when you toss it out there we really need to be careful and to the point of what kind of changes your talking about ?

NO one denies natural selection, we see that, we observe it, its testable and verifiable. i.e. Darwins finches .. but regardless of this kind of change they are still birds. The peppered moths are still moths, the fruit flies are still fruit flies, the E.coli is still Ecoli, the SIlver Foxes are still foxes.

The whole basis of this macro evolution thinking is that there was some primoridal ooze that evolved slowly over time into more and more complex things and wallah , here we are humans.

So I am asking you , show me the gaining of information needed to go from the simple into the complex we are today.

I dont even need to use religion, its just the lack of observational empirical evidence and science. Science books back in High school are riddled with wild imaginations of artists who assume many things. Speaking of religion you all are using yours, Naturalism, uniformitarianism , world view.. a view that needs to reject any notion of God. Its a belief system.

So when you can explain how we got here, then I will listen. Until then dont criticize my knowledge of evolution and not know what it does or does not show.

Marmaduke49:

I’ve noticed that no scientific expert has presented a reasonable explanation or scientific principle supporting ANY of the four bedrock events that I think HAD TO OCCUR to validate Darwin’s THEORY of evolution. The first event screaming for explanation is how could life have arisen by itself from lifeless matter through random processes? (and why isn't this still happening?) Such a development has never been observed or documented and the Law of Biogenesis says it's impossible anyway.

Second, how could complex information (such as that contained in DNA) have emerged by itself from inanimate matter through random processes? (and why isn't this still happening?)

Third, what EVIDENCE shows that ANY animal had changed into a completely different kind of animal? (and why isn't this still happening?)

Fourth, why does the fossil record show that animals of staggering complexity suddenly appeared throughout the earth WITHOUT evolutionary precursors?

If none of these elementary questions about evolution can be answered, how can any clear-thinking person accept evolution as a sound THEORY? And to add fuel to the fire, so to speak, other scientific LAWS and principles (several of which I've already mentioned in earlier comments) directly contradict evolution. Most of my remaining questions about the THEORY of evolution are just subsets of the basic questions above.

It’s also thought-provoking to realize that our genetic code has a built-in error correction system. Errors are constantly creeping into the DNA code because of radiation, chemical exposure, and other outside forces. But scientists have discovered a number of key enzymes within the cell whose only job is to find and correct errors in the genetic code. These enzymes faithfully correct mistakes, thereby preventing/minimizing mutations. Yet we are expected to believe that these mistakes and mutations are what caused evolution to happen. SO, WHY WOULD A SYSTEM EVOLVE WHOSE SOLE FUNCTION IS TO PREVENT THE VERY MECHANISM WHICH SUPPOSEDLY DRIVES EVOLUTION (MUTATIONS)?

Life could not accurately reproduce without this genetic proofreading. And scientists have no adequate explanation for how these specific enzymes could have evolved by random processes. Everywhere we hear that things have "evolved," yet no explanation is given for how specific biological functions, such as this mistake-correcting mechanism, could have evolved.

Darwinism itself has religious implications (or rather, anti-religious ones), but the THEORY is still taught in public schools. Darwinism and design theory are not two different subjects; THEY ARE COMPETING ANSWERS TO THE SAME QUESTION: How did life arise and diversify on Earth? If one viewpoint is taught, the other should be taught as well. Critics charge this would inject religion into the science classroom. But the idea that life exhibits design is a timeless observation that has been held by religious and non-religious alike since the time of the ancient Stoics. Anyway, contemporary “design theory” relies on scientific evidence to determine whether an event is caused by natural or intelligent causes - just as a detective relies on evidence to decide whether a death was natural or murder, or an insurance company relies on evidence to decide whether a fire is an accident or arson.

Even though both intelligent design and evolution are outside the realm of empirical science, we can still treat them as scientific models that we can examine to determine which one best fits the evidence. There are evolution scientists who support the fact that SETI (search for extra terrestrial intelligence) is scientific. In that case, they support the notion that searching for an intelligent source/intelligent life in outer space is scientific. But when evolutionists claim that it is not scientific to apply this same practice to looking for an intelligent source for life, they are clearly applying a double-standard. Put another way, when we sift for clues in a fire, if we find some pattern not attributable to random chance, we reasonably attribute the fire to an intelligent source (arson) and not to accident. We arrive at such a conclusion scientifically. Yet when it comes to origins, evolutionists refuse to apply this same kind of scientific examination. This demonstrates that evolution does not have its roots in scientific inquiry but instead in a philosophical world-view with a dogmatic commitment to naturalism. To adhere to sound scientific practices such as arson investigation, while ignoring this same practice regarding origins, is simply anti-science.

In any case, claiming that every living thing came about via mindless random processes requires a faith that far exceeds belief in a Supreme Creator. As the renown British physicist Lord Kelvin once wrote: "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." My Webster's dictionary lists one definition of religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." This is exactly what belief in evolution is, since it takes incredible faith to believe that life came about by blind random processes, such that given enough time scales can turn into feathers, or that fish can turn into men. The faith required to believe a single cell formed by chance is beyond comprehension, something Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer and mathematician) called "nonsense of the highest order."

My point is that evolution is just a THEORY, not a FACT. So to present it as a hard fact in any arena (classroom, internet, etc.) while ignoring any other alternative is unscientific, biased, and frankly dishonest. The rigid adherence to the THEORY of evolution without investigating any other alternative is a kind of hysteria, an entrenched ideology that provides close-minded people with a fur-lined rut that's just too comfortable to leave.

I already stated: I don't discuss it with people who still say "it just a theory" or refuse to look at the entire fossil record, or use the word "macro". These all show a clear lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

hambone johnson:

YOU WROTE: "I already stated: I don't discuss it (evolution) with people who still say "it just a theory" or refuse to look at the entire fossil record, or use the word "macro". These all show a clear lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution."

MY RESPONSE: Then how can you discount the conclusions of world-renowned Paleontologists (for example, Dr. Steven Jay Gould whom I quoted in an earlier post), who did look at the entire fossil record and admitted it had serious shortcomings?

Or how about these scientists, who also looked at the entire fossil record and agreed that it does NOT indicate evolutionary gradualism:

N. Herbert Nilsson, a renowned botanist, evolutionist, and professor at Lund University in Sweden, documented his expert assessment of the fossil record when he wrote “The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

If that’s not forceful enough, here’s what Dr. Austin Clark, the former leading biologist of the prestigious Smithsonian Institute in Washington said about the subject: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types.”

Getting back to the gaps in the fossil record, what do you think the secular evolutionists did when confronted by all the notorious missing links? They simply searched for another model and found one they named the theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium,” meaning that evolutionary change in the fossil record came in fits and starts rather than in a steady process of slow change. But the theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium” is actually an unobserved, imagined scenario to explain missing evidence based on fossils not found and mechanisms not observed. In other words, punctuationists acknowledge that there is no evidence of gradualism in the fossil record, so they instead put their faith in a belief that evolution happened in bursts in small populations. They actually claim that the punctuation theory predicts that fossils should be missing! Therefore, the punctuationists core belief is essentially rooted in missing evidence! How convincing is that? As a result, all of the available data (real and imagined) from fossils is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered at all.

In a nutshell, the significant problems with the fossil record can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfections in the fossil record. These scientific shortcomings cast doubt upon the validity of evolution while simultaneously fueling the notion that a Creator had something to do with the sudden appearance of life on earth. Amazingly, a 1995 report in “Time” magazine said “Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.” Such facts from a secular periodical seriously undermine the entire theory of evolution. In my opinion, it’s not a stretch of imagination to conclude that the fossil record even contradicts evolution.

Now, I realize that some critics will doggedly contend that the enormous gaps in the fossil record are due to the reason that many creatures simply did not fossilize because they were composed of soft body parts or because some other unfavorable condition persisted at the time, such as an adverse climate. But in the case of the trilobites, we're dealing with a gap of 100 million years when no ancestors were fossilized anywhere on earth. So, isn't it reasonable to conclude that there were no ancestors? Besides, even soft organisms (such as leaves, ferns, flowers, and plants in general) as well as soft body parts (such as feathers and fur) have been fossilized, so why not the ancestors of trilobites?

Occasionally, the cell walls of leaves and even the cell contents have been preserved by a process called “permineralization.” This process can produce exquisitely detailed fossils. The truth is that there are hundreds of fossil sites WORLWIDE where soft tissue parts are preserved. Examples include the early Cambrian Burgess Shale of Canada and Maotianshan Shales of China, the Carboniferous Mazon Creek Formation, and the Eocene Messel Pit of Germany.

Even amber occasionally traps insects, preserving their delicate bodies. The Baltic Sea area, the Dominican Republic, and the Andes Mountains of Colombia are the main sources of amber, although smaller quantities are still found WORLWIDE. Amazingly, fossil resin can trap a small segment of an entire ecosystem, since plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and a host of other ancient microorganisms may all be simultaneously sealed within the hardened resin, which itself is a plant fossil.

So, with all those possibilities for fossilization occurring worldwide for hundreds of millions of years, you’d think some ancestors of trilobites and complex insects would have been found somewhere sometime in the fossil record. But they haven’t. And yet some folks still believe that such precursors were prolific. Therefore, it seems to me that a key part of the belief in evolution is based upon missing/contrary evidence. How scientific is that?

First, I had a hard time finding the source of you Gould quote and the fact that you chopped it into bits suggests that you are quote mining.

Second Heribert Nilsson (whose name you misspelled) was in no way a "renowned" or even "noted" who wrote two books (can you name them) and said that in 1954. That's almost 60 years ago. You don't think we've found more since? Did all science stop in 1954?

Third, Dr. Austin Clark? Died in 1954. Not to mention that she was wrong.

Right there you've started with three common creationist talking points. So why would I listen to the rest.

hambone johnson

I already stated: I don't discuss it with people who still say "it just a theory" or refuse to look at the entire fossil record, or use the word "macro". These all show a clear lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

They show that species change to adapt to their environment, but it doesnt show slugs evolving into human beings.

Like I said Hambone, its time for you to step up to the plate, and show us all the proof for this goo to human being evolution. Show me this fossil record of all these thousands , millions of transitional fossils of things evolving into entire new speices, and or into human beings.

All I am asking is for you to show me, or any scientist. I have been asking this for the last 20 years, and the only feedback I get is name calling, or someone saying, that I dont understand.

Ya your right I dont understand how people can believe in history of something that doesnt even exist and this is this long evolution of species turning into new entire species and here we are human and then we stop here not to turn into anything else. Its pretty amazing...

If you think that evolution should provide you with a fossil record of slugs "evolving" into humans, you don't have even a basic understanding of the evolutionary "theory". Please admit to us that you are just playing dumb.

hambone johnson:

YOU WROTE: "First, I had a hard time finding the source of you Gould quote and the fact that you chopped it into bits suggests that you are quote mining."

MY RESPONSE: Get Professor Gould's book, "The Panda's Thumb" (1980). Then turn to pages 181-182 to see the quote I posted on this thread. Incidentally, I revisited the quote I posted, and it's NOT "chopped into bits" as you shamelessly claimed. I only made one small break for the sake of brevity. Of course, you made that accusation WITHOUT ever seeing/reading the book containing that quote. So, how reckless is that?

THEN YOU WROTE: "Heribert Nilsson...said that (referring to a quote I posted about the fossil record) in 1954. That's almost 60 years ago. You don't think we've found more since? Did all science stop in 1954?...Third, Dr. Austin Clark (whom I also quoted) Died in 1954..."

MY RESPONSE: Well gee, hambone johnson, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was proposed in 1859 (that's 154 years ago) and he died in 1882 (That's 121 years ago). So, if the age of someone's work - or the fact that they're deceased - is a critical factor for gauging their credibility, then Darwin's work has far less credibility than anything uttered by Professor Nilsson or Dr. Clark. In other words, if you can't believe a scientific conclusion because it's 60 years old, then how can you doggedly defend Darwin's theory, which is 151 years old? And Darwin is deceased, too! Ever hear of a double standard?

Also, most of the information I've posted about evolution is from secular sources, such as "Time" magazine, a book called "Rare Earth", the "National Geographic," "The World Book" encyclopedia, “Encyclopedia Britannica”, and various internet websites that simply deal with fossils, earth sciences, and enigmas (in other words, neutral about evolution). So, any connection between most of my cited sources and creationist beliefs is probably coincidental (I failed to check for shared connections because that was irrelevant). In other words, just because "Time" magazine, "National Geographic", or a couple of encyclopedias report scientific facts about fossils (and those facts support a creationist position) doesn't make "Time" magazine, "National Geographic", or a couple of encyclopedias tools of creationists. Get real!

Finally, I wouldn't call myself a creationist because I don't share many of their beliefs. For example, I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time people did or that the universe was created in six literal days. However, I'm convinced that a Supreme Creator had a lot to do with the origin of the universe and how we got here. Period.

Paul:

If you are such a staunch believer in Darwin's theory of evolution, please answer these relevant questions to show you have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory:

First, what scientific principle describes how life can arise by itself from lifeless matter through random processes for no apparent reason? (and is this still occuring today?) As far as I know, such an astounding development has never been observed or documented and the Law of Biogenesis says it's impossible anyway. You do believe in science, don't you?

Second, what scientific principle describes how complex information (such as that contained in DNA) can emerge by itself from lifeless matter through random processes for no apparent reason? (and is this still happening somewhere?)

Third, what scientific principle shows that any animal can change (over time) into a completely different kind of animal? (and is this still happening today?) In other words, where can I go to see apes in the various transitional stages of becoming human? I'd be interested in seeing the later stages where the apes are obviously and apparently half ape and half human; there should be thousands, or maybe even millions of examples if Darwin's theory is correct.

Fourth, why does the fossil record show that animals of staggering complexity suddenly appeared throughout the earth WITHOUT evolutionary precursors?

I'll wait for your answers.

Paul-977599

If you think that evolution should provide you with a fossil record of slugs "evolving" into humans, you don't have even a basic understanding of the evolutionary "theory". Please admit to us that you are just playing dumb.

Why do I have to admit I am dumb ? When all I am asking for is the proof, the evidence that shows this long process of Molecules to man idea ? Where are the multitudes of transitional fossils. Show me one example of a species evolving into another complete and entire species , Lizards to birds, slugs to humans.

I dont have issues with variation in species to adapt to environment .. We see that all around us, but last i looked the human race isnt growing gills, or wings to fly away, were not turning into little green men with antennae over our heads so we can communicate telepathically.

There have never been a person in the last 20 years I have been debating, not one who can show the entire process of the very first life form, organic goo and take us from there and end up with human beings.

I try to make it easier, I even ask take us from present and go backwards, since that is so much closer is time and people cant even do that. It always ends up with name calling and honestly I dont have time for that. Name calling just ends up with that person being put in Ignore so i dont have to see any more of their childish attacks.

I would even settle for .... We just dont know.. We have our guess, but in the end, were not for sure. That doesnt require a belief in God. I would be happy if people said , we dont know..

Marmaduke49:

Let me describe another interesting enigma about evolution, which I read in a secular magazine (U.S. News and World Report, August 18, 1997).

I'm going to paraphrase here: One has to wonder how and why a single-sex organism would turn into two different sexes! The U.S. News and World Report even listed the origin of gender as one of the greatest scientific mysteries. This is because evolution has no answer for how a single-sex organism could possibly have turned into two completely different sexes, which had to appear simultaneously for reproduction to be successful, yet the reproductive organs and functions of each are completely different.

Evolutionists know that sexual separation had to occur INNUMERABLE TIMES throughout evolutionary history, yet no adequate cause or mechanism has been proposed which can convincingly explain how opposite sexes could have developed simultaneously even once.

So, I must ask, "Could it be that such an astounding development required input from an intelligent Creator?" Inquiring minds want to know.

Yea its unbelievable. From a evolutionary , darwinian point of view, Asexual reproduction is far superior. Its all about what religion you follow. The biblical view, or the humanistic uniformitarianism naturalistic atheistic world view religion.

Rhonda,

You take three people, two who died over fifty years ago and use them to support your false claim that evolution is "only a theory." Meanwhile, in those fifty years, more discoveries, including trackable changes in DNA, fossil evidence, observable modern evolution, demonstrable predictability, and similar morphology in structures as they changed.

Scientist and author, Brian Alters once said that, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." And have you heard of "Project Steve"? It shows that, as of 2007, there are more scientists with a variation of the name "Steve" who agree that evolution is truth, then there are total who believe in creation.

I'm not going to debate evolution with people who only bring up old data and quotes while the people who have spent over a century and a half, the people who do the studies, make the observations and predict the results are in agreement with me.

Marmaduke said:

Asexual reproduction is far superior.

No, it's not. And this is why I will not debate with you. You clearly have no understanding of the science of natural selection.

You see, asexual reproduction allows for no genetic change, always reproducing exactly the same thing without adaptation, while the world around it changes. An asexual creature will often, although not always, perish because its environment has changed to something it could not adapt to.

Except for by mutation.........

Good point.

So even if the species adapts , it is still the same species. It didnt turn into something new and that is the entire point.

Your view of evolution is that man kind evolved from some primordial ooze. This long process of going through many different species until we ended up as human beings. My argument is where is this evidence ?

That is the real reason you will not debate, because you dont have such evidence. What you do have are assumptions and hypothesis . In the end you have nothing to support your view.

So i ask you one last time, show the the process from goo to human marco evolution.

As for the asexual reproduction , it was my intention to state that it is superior in a stable environment, but in a changing environment that is not stable, then yes sexual reproduction is needed for continuing life.

But this isnt the issue, its still about lack of evidence to show how we got here.

You're right: I don't have all the evidence. And I'm not going to argue with you because you've already started with a faulty understanding of the biology of evolution. Not only am I not a teacher, but it is foolish to try to teach someone who refuses to learn.

The evidence for evolution is all over: on the internet; in books; in libraries and museums. But you don't really want to know the truth because you've already decided what you believe and your blind faith would never allow you to veer from that path.

So I won't waste time trying to correct all your misunderstandings and outright denials. It's not worth my time.

hambone johnson

You're right: I don't have all the evidence. And I'm not going to argue with you because you've already started with a faulty understanding of the biology of evolution. Not only am I not a teacher, but it is foolish to try to teach someone who refuses to learn.

Im not here to argue Hambone. I am here to get people to show the proof of their assumptions. If you, someone who says we got here by chance , a goo to human mankind process over millions of years, then I want to be enlightened of how you came to that conclusion.

Im not refusing to learn anything, because nothing is being taught. If a text book states that man comes from Goo, then I am to believe that just because the book says so ? I am to stop thinking and just become a lemming and accept anything and everything told to me ? At what time would a professor tell his students to never critically think about anything and just go along with what the books say. Im not a robot, and I wont be programmed to think like one.

Also a side note, science books are not the only thing I criticize. One of my best friends is a Professor at a college, and also is a Preacher at a Church. I bombard him with the really hard questions about theology, not the simple ones like why is there death and suffering ect ect .
I am the "devils Advocate" when it comes to the bible. I think there is part of me that wants to prove it wrong so I can live life wild and crazy like my inner passion, and rebellious sinful nature wants to, but I keep myself in check because I know there is a higher authority I need to be accountable to and thats God, not man.

The evidence for evolution is all over: on the internet; in books; in libraries and museums. But you don't really want to know the truth because you've already decided what you believe and your blind faith would never allow you to veer from that path.

Blind faith ? Why do i have blind faith ? I believe in writing written by men, who witnessed and seen fullfilled endless prophecies about a man who would come and die for our sins. I see a book that is showing some real end time stuff that I see going on around us today. I see a Book that shows that there is such thing as Absolutes and that is based off of the Authority of God and his Goodness and Justice.

Blind faith would be to listen to a person go on talking about some event that supposing happened billions of years ago ( which wasnt billions when i was a kid , science books keep changing over time, and the age becomes older ) No one was there to witness it, it cant be duplicated, it cant be tested, no one can explain nor logically and rationally show how existence just starts one day. Or show how life came from non life, the firts simple cell appears, how that cell turned into more complex cells, how they became little organisms, into more complex organisms, into animals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, ect ect into human beings eventually over time.

That truly is Blind Faith there. I have history by witnesses. That to me is far much easier to believe than anything else that cant explain anything.

So I won't waste time trying to correct all your misunderstandings and outright denials. It's not worth my time.

Please stop wasting your time with me. Move on , because until you can explain all the issues I stated, then you can not make me believe in Blind faith. What is there to correct ? I havent made any assumptions about evolution, I just been asking you all to show this entire long process from A to Z, but no one can seem to do that. I cant deny anything, because no declaration has been made yet for me to deny.

So if you ever have the time , and or the science to show me how we got here, then by all means I will be listening , eagerly.

Origination and evolution are two different things.

Marmaduke,

I am not a scientist, nor am I a professor. I am just a well educated professional who likes to read about everything. I read science, theology, history etc. because I want to know more. But I'm not a teacher, and I'm not here to prove anything to you, because that's not my job.

If a text book states that man comes from Goo, then I am to believe that just because the book says so ?

No, you go out and read more books. And more. And more. I did not come to my conclusions lightly, I was a devout Christian for most of my life and it took me a long time to come to grips with the fact that I didn't believe in a personal god. But as I stated earlier, "I don't entirely dismiss the idea of a natural god of some sort."

Why do i have blind faith ?

Why do you have blind faith? I have no idea, but it could be because you believe one book and dismiss all the others. And that book was not "written by men, who witnessed and seen fullfilled [sic] endless prophecies about a man who would come and die for our sins." It was written decades after the man supposedly died for our sins, by non witnesses, only on hearsay.

That's blind faith.

science books keep changing over time, and the age becomes older

Yes, because we are learning more about the world and universe. Meanwhile you believe a book that never changes.

So if you ever have the time , and or the science to show me how we got here, then by all means I will be listening , eagerly.

Honestly, I don't have the time because there is so much evidence for evolution that it's almost overwhelming. But, you must actually look at all the evidence. It took me years to understand it and, i must admit, I don't think my understanding of the whole thing is sufficient for me to be your teacher. So, like I suggest, go to a library, start with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, go to museums to see the fossil record. It's easy, but you have to work for it. You can't just sit at your computer and have me feed it to you.

Paul-977599

Origination and evolution are two different things.

Paul I am very aware of that. Im not new to the whole world of this debate. I been doing it for 20 years now. There is nothing I dont know about or heard of.

Even though they are separate they go hand in hand because one leads right into the other.

Why do you have blind faith? I have no idea, but it could be because you believe one book and dismiss all the others. And that book was not "written by men, who witnessed and seen fullfilled [sic] endless prophecies about a man who would come and die for our sins." It was written decades after the man supposedly died for our sins, by non witnesses, only on hearsay.

And that automatically discredits information ? Should we say the same about historians who write about hitler so many years ago. Maybe we should discredit anyone who rights anything about something that happened 20 years ago because its obvious people dont know how to write information down if its been over a few days.

The bible stands its ground , and defends against any attack to discredit it.

Yes, because we are learning more about the world and universe. Meanwhile you believe a book that never changes.

Guess im the crazy one to believe in a God who says something and it never changes as opposed to someone who wants to believe in mans word that changes all the time. Sorry i dont want my eternity in the hands of people who are changing their minds all the time.

Im well aware of darwin, and fossils. None of them show how we as humans came to be from the beginning. That is where your faith begins, and mine ends in men.

Ill take God who made everything , and it never changes.

Guess im the crazy one to believe in a God who says something and it never changes as opposed to someone who wants to believe in mans word that changes all the time.

You mean the god who said the Earth was flat?

None of them show how we as humans came to be from the beginning.

They show, clearly the progress of evolution from more ape-like creatures to modern humans. Being aware of fossils, as opposed to studying them and understanding them are two massively different things.

hambone johnson

Guess im the crazy one to believe in a God who says something and it never changes as opposed to someone who wants to believe in mans word that changes all the time.

You mean the god who said the Earth was flat?

LOL and show me where GOD said that the earth was flat. We already knew the earth was circular back in those times.

Isiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers

So where does God say the earth is flat ? If your referring to JOB , God is not talking about the planet. He is talking about "Job" the person. His depth, His structure, His personality, His mind, His Soul, His Spirit, His body, everything about the creating of a person. This is the error of thinking in man: to think that God is talking about things from their perspective. To God everything is layed out before Him and nothing is hidden. He knows everything about a person. Every hair is numbered and every cell. He is talking about the DNA of life, not about a rock floating in space.

They show, clearly the progress of evolution from more ape-like creatures to modern humans. Being aware of fossils, as opposed to studying them and understanding them are two massively different things.

Ok we can go the easier route for you since you cant explain the other way from beginning to now. Lets work backwards. Which fossil would you like to start with the one before humans.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

The Earth is not a circle. It's a sphere. Didn't god know that?

As for the rest, I'm not taking you on a tour of the fossil record. Get up and do it yourself.

Lets not get mincy with words.. Circle, sphere.. Besides regardless if it was the word flat used, it would still be fine because its from men who only know what is around them.

If you had God himself who spoke words and they appeared on pages then yes you would have every accurate word. This is truly petty squabble to try to discredit the bible and its authenticity, and accuracy.

Now for the Fossil record, that is too easy of a cop out. There is nothing for me to do. My argument is that there is no evidence that can show this entire process from goo to human . You cant give me an answer. SO i made it easier for you, I said take me backwards then from human, to what we were before human. What fossil did we come from ? What common ancestor ? I already know about all the fossils, but I am waiting to hear what one you pick , so we can be on the same page and go from there. Until then, just say science isnt for sure.. If you can say that, then we can be done this debate. Doesnt mean you or I win anything, just means science doesnt know, its all best guesses.

it would still be fine because its from men who only know what is around them.

Exactly. The word of men. Not a god.

As far as the fossil record, I'm now confused as to what you're asking for. You want me to list a common ancestor for what? For humans and chimps? For humans and whales? For dolphins and seagulls? What are you asking for?

Originally, I thought you were asking me to take you through a tour of the fossil record, which I am definitely not going to do, but if you want just one, please clarify what it is, exactly, that you are looking for.

Thank you.

hambone johnson:

YOU WROTE: "... there is so much evidence for evolution that it's almost overwhelming. But, you must actually look at all the evidence. It took me years to understand it and, i must admit, I don't think my understanding of the whole thing is sufficient for me to be your teacher. So, like I suggest, go to a library, start with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, go to museums to see the fossil record. It's easy, but you have to work for it. You can't just sit at your computer and have me feed it to you."

MY RESPONSE: If there is so much evidence for evolution, and you understand it as you claim to, then why do you repeatedly ignore basic questions about the topic? I've already asked you four key questions a couple of times, but you (and your admirers) repeatedly neglect to answer any of them or even attempt to. So, if evolution is so obvious to you, why are you having so much difficulty answering some basic questions? You just aren't credible.

Also, you urge others to read Darwin's On the Origin of the Species, but that book is about 150 years old. Yet in one of your earlier comments, you criticized me for posting information mainly because it was 60 years old. Your double standard continues to amaze me.

YOU ALSO WROTE: "They show, clearly the progress of evolution from more ape-like creatures to modern humans. Being aware of fossils, as opposed to studying them and understanding them are two massively different things."

MY RESPONSE: Apparently, you're not aware of the following developments in Paleontology: Our museums (which you urge others to visit to learn more about evolution) now contain more than a hundred million fossils of 250,000 different species (40 million fossils alone are in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). Yet, there is no concrete evidence of evolutionary transitions found in the fossil record so far. In Charles Darwin’s own words, if his theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we should find vast numbers of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we should see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. That means we should have already found millions of unquestionable transitional life forms. But we haven’t. So, where are they?

Paleontologist Niles Etheridge of the British Museum has remarked: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, NOT FOUNDED ON OBSERVATION AND WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS....In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

In short, there are no examples in the fossil record of one animal slowly changing into a different kind of animal. Diagrams have been made which show variations in the same types of animals in an effort to organize them into a supposed evolutionary order, but such diagrams are mostly based on conjecture. The truth is that the gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. Ironically, we now have even fewer supposed examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, had to be discarded or modified as the result of new information.

Of course, that means the fossil record also contains many holes in the evolutionary appearance of humans on earth. A few notable examples include Ramapithecus, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Neanderthal man. Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans but is now established as merely an extinct type of orangutan; Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years but was found to be a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw; Nebraska man was exposed as another fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig; and Neanderthal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man, but that alleged posture resulted from disease and Neanderthal was found to be just a variation of the human kind.

Professor Steven Jay Gould, the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his death, even confessed in his book Evolution Now that there are no “missing links”; instead, he suggested that the whole chain is missing!

I suggest you read more books and periodicals about evolution. But this time, try to find some that examine the topic with open-minded objectivity.

hambone johnson:

Remember how you urged others to read Darwin's On the Origin of Species? Well, guess what?

In the 100th edition of On the Origin of Species, Sir Arthur Keith wrote, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

How's that for a revelation?

hambone johnson:

I should have been a bit more precise. Sir Arthur Keith wrote that statement in the Forward to Darwin's book (if you want to check it out for yourself).

If there is so much evidence for evolution, and you understand it as you claim to, then why do you repeatedly ignore basic questions about the topic?

That's weird that you failed to read my whole comment even though you quoted it just above:

"It took me years to understand it and, i must admit, I don't think my understanding of the whole thing is sufficient for me to be your teacher."

Understanding something and being able to teach or defend it are two different things. That's why I keep directing Marmaduke (and you) to the authorities on the subject.

Also, you urge others to read Darwin's On the Origin of the Species, but that book is about 150 years old.

Again, you quote mine. You are also not credible. I told Marmaduke to, and I quote myself, "start with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, go to museums to see the fossil record." And earlier in the same post, I told him/her, and again I quote, " you go out and read more books. And more. And more."

there is no concrete evidence of evolutionary transitions found in the fossil record so far.

This is the main reason I hate discussing evolution with you people: you don't understand evolution at all. Almost every fossil is a transitional fossil. I am a transition between my parents and my children. There isn't an ape fossil, then suddenly an exact middle fossil between ape and human, and then human. It's a slow, slow, slow process.

Paleontologist Niles Etheridge

Did you mean Niles Eldredge? Because I couldn't find a Niles Etheridge. It's funny, this is the second time you got a name wrong. Your credibility is dipping even more...

But if you did mean Niles Eldredge, I couldn't find your quote except on anti-evolution sites. Odd. Especially since he is quite the defender of evolution and was one of the first paleontologists to suggest punctuated equilibrium, along with your friend, Stephen Jay Gould.

And when Gould stated there are no missing links, he was explaining what I just did above. A "missing link" is a stupid thing to search for and only people who totally do not understand evolution, i.e. you and Marmaduke, would still seek such a thing.

hambone Johnson:

Your gobbledygook is nothing but a feeble excuse for continuing to avoid the basic questions about evolution that I (and Marmaduke49) can't get you or your admirers to answer. But in a certain sense, your inability to answer those basic questions IS THE ANSWER, which is the basis for my argument all along. In other words, ardent advocates of evolution (like you) CANNOT answer the most basic questions about evolution, yet they claim to understand evolution and refuse to investigate any other alternative for how we got here. How scientific or reasonable is that?

Oh, I almost forgot: the source for my quote - Niles Etheridge - whom you couldn't track down AND whose name you falsely claimed I misspelled, is easily found on a google search. I think I found his name and pertinent quote in less than 10 seconds. And it wasn't on an anti-evolution site. So, your credibility is becoming more and more suspect.

Moreover, I know that icon Steven Jay Gould was one of the paleontologists who formulated the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory for evolution. But you missed the whole point because Professor Gould bolstered my point of view. Do you know why Professor Gould formulated the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium?" He did that because he realized, after years of study, that there are no transitional examples in the fossil record to prove gradualism, i.e. showing that one kind of animal slowly changed into a completely different kind of animal over time. In essence, he proved the point I've been making all along.

And now you're claiming that scientists aren't searching for missing links?...or aren't even interested in missing links? Isn't that because paleontologists realize such links don't even exist? If those fossil links did exist, isn't it likely that at least some of them would already be among the millions upon millions of fossil examples already in our museums?

Your last comment just doesn't make sense.

Your last comment just doesn't make sense.

To you, which is why this is such a waste of time.

I tried again to find Niles Etheridge and accidentally found the site where you seem to get most of your info:

http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/stillinthebeginning.html

It's a creationist website. And you appear to be copy/pasting.

His name is Eldridge and he does not work at the British Museum. I actually went to the British Museum's website and entered "Niles Etheridge" and guess how many items came up.

Your credibility is GONE.

hambone johnson:

YOU WROTE: "I tried again to find Niles Etheridge and accidentally found the site where you seem to get most of your info...It's a creationist website. And you appear to be copy/pasting...His name is Eldridge and he does not work at the British Museum. I actually went to the British Museum's website and entered "Niles Etheridge" and guess how many items came up." (insert laugh track here)

MY RESPONSE: That's funny because the website I originally pulled the quote from by Niles Etheridge is called "Yahoo Answers" (I doubt that's a creationist website). And the reason I was on that website was my fascination with the topic of the time, which was

Should we be non-skeptical and just accept all claims without evidence?

I found the quote by Dr. Niles Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum, as part of someone's answer about evolution when I scrolled down the page just a tad. So, here we go again with another of your baseless accusations and reckless assumptions.

Also, I just performed a google search on "British Museum and Niles Etheridge" and voila! I got at least 10 hits, almost every one of which associated Niles Etheridge with the British Museum. So, once again, your credibility is totally suspect.

Anyway, I have no idea what point you're trying to make; do you? And even if Niles Etheridge was quoted on a creationist website, so what? As long as he is a paleontologist and is knowledgeable about fossils, isn't that what the discussion is about? And since Dr. Etheridge is associated with the British Museum, isn't that one of the places you suggested that folks like me should check out. Apparently, you don't even accept criticism about evolution from secular sources you suggest I check out. Plus, if the substance of the Etheridge quote is incorrect or has been challenged by another paleontologist, please post it for everyone to see. Otherwise, stop posting foolish comments, which are factually dishonest.

Incidentally, I noticed time and again, that you still fail to address the nagging, basic questions I keep asking about evolution. So, I guess I should just expect more of your transparent attempts to dodge my basic questions about evolution, which you claim to understand because the evidence is so "overwhelming." (insert another laugh track here)

Now go ahead, change the subject (again), and attack.

hambone johnson:

I visited the website you claimed is the source for the quote I posted by Niles Etheridge, and I have no idea what "bluemarble" is (I'm guessing that's a descriptive term for the "earth").

But anyway, that's a great website with lots of useful information for me to check out. Thanks for the link!

I originally pulled the quote from by Niles Etheridge is called "Yahoo Answers" (I doubt that's a creationist website).

It's also not a very credible website. Jesus, you got your info from there? Your introduction to the quote is exactly the same as the one on the site I provided, so you copy/pasted from someone who also copy/pasted.

I then googled "British Museum and Niles Etheridge" as you did and got this listing:

The site I posted above (creationist);
forum.bible-discussion.com › ... › Jehovah's Witnesses
Your yahoo answers
www.provethebible.net (creationist)
www.aboundingjoy.com (creationist)
www.flascience.orggzzt.org/answers/questions (a Florida science site, some ding-dong used the quote in a comment. Coincidentally it was also copy/pasted.
and a wikipedia page listing notable paleontologists. I did have Niles Elderidge (because he exists) but no Niles Etheridge. There was, however, a Robert Etheridge, Jr., but he was Australian and currently deceased.

Niles Etheridge does not exist. That's my point. And that you're getting your info (even if second hand) from creationist websites who will go out of their way to manipulate quotes to suit their needs.

Anyway, I forgot what questions you asked that I refuse to answer.

hambone johnson:

You still didn't refute the SUBSTANCE of the quote I posted wherein the claim has been made that evolution is "unproved and unprovable."

That being said, let's return to the main issue immediately at hand. If you are such a staunch believer in Darwin's theory of evolution, please answer these relevant questions to show you have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory:

First, what scientific principle describes how life can arise by itself from lifeless matter through random processes for no apparent reason? (and is this still occuring today?) As far as I know, such an astounding development has never been observed or documented and the Law of Biogenesis says it's impossible anyway. You do believe in science, don't you?

Second, what scientific principle describes how incredibly complex information (such as that contained in DNA) can emerge by itself from lifeless matter through random processes for no apparent reason? (and is this still happening somewhere?)

Third, what scientific principle shows that any animal can change (over time) into a completely different kind of animal? (and is this still happening today?) In other words, where can I go to see apes in the various transitional stages of becoming human? I'd be interested in seeing the mid-stages of transition where the apes are obviously and apparently half ape and half human; there should be thousands of examples somewhere if Darwin's theory is correct.

Fourth, why does the fossil record show that animals of staggering complexity suddenly appeared throughout the earth WITHOUT evolutionary precursors? A host of sources, which I've already identified, made that unchallenged (as far as I can determine) observation.

I'll wait for your answers.

Oh, I forgot. Isn’t evolution related to cosmology? The universe and everything in it had to come from somewhere so that evolution could begin. Was evolution a process that was already underway when absolutely nothing existed, and it became the driving force that somehow brought matter, time, and energy into existence from nothing? How and when did evolution begin and what caused it? My inquiring mind wants to know.

With regard to evolution, it is more logical that MIND CAME BEFORE MATTER rather than the other way around. Sure, our minds are made of matter, but what logical principle tells you that lifeless matter can evolve into a thinking mind far more complex than the most sophisticated computers? I can't think of a single example where such a development has occurred. On the other hand, our own personal experiences have demonstrated repeatedly that MINDS have routinely created matter in the form of cars, appliances, boats, planes, sophisticated computers, and other devices. But which gobs of lifeless matter have created minds?

Common sense tells me that God created the universe and everything in it. In my opinion, All THEORIES, including any version of evolution, must include intelligent input from God to be reasonable.

Understanding something and being able to teach or defend it are two different things. That's why I keep directing Marmaduke (and you) to the authorities on the subject.

I have been to the websites.. talkorigins being one of the main ones, but yet their rebuttal website is Trueorigins where they give rebuttal to what they are saying..

It just goes back and forth.

Regardless of who says what , none of them can show this entire long process of Goo to human evolution.

Lets look at something.

We came from something. Your argument is that evolution is how we come to be. And when this word is used loosely, it can mean anything but most of us assume that its a process that took billions of years, or millions of years until a few hundred thousand years ago when humans came around.

So my argument is, if life started as a primordial stew, with all the right conditions ( which you need to proce also ) just say you did have it all right, then you still need to show and explain how simple cells evolve into such complex beings where they eventually become animals, or reptiles, birds, and one day human beings. This long process would have to leave a huge amount of fossil records.

So since i know you can not explain or show me how simple cells can evolve into humans beings over time, I just ask you to take us backwards.

So yes here we are , human beings. What were we before we were human ? If you say we were apes, or a chimp or what ever.. tell me exactly what chimp/ape fossil we were ?

But anyway, that's a great website with lots of useful information for me to check out. Thanks for the link!

So instead of going to a real scientific website to gather information, you choose to go to one that has proven it does not care to check its facts. Therefore, there is no use talking to you further.

But I will answer your questions.

The first two are about abiogenesis, not evolution. Again, proof that you do not understand evolution.

And we do not yet know exactly how abiogenesis occurred. So, for now, the answer is "I don't know."

what scientific principle shows that any animal can change (over time) into a completely different kind of animal?

The scientific principle is called natural selection.

(and is this still happening today?)

Yes. But you're not going to find apes becoming human, that's already happened.

You two both want a list of transitional fossils. Fine:

List of human evolution fossils

and, since it's likely you'll claim wikipedia is not good enough, here's a site that discusses it for you:

National Center for Science Education

it is more logical that MIND CAME BEFORE MATTER rather than the other way around.

No, it's not. What is a mind without matter? Nothing. It doesn't exist because all the mind is is chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

OK. Spirit came before matter. That's their 'answer', faith. It is their answer for everything.

On matters that are purely matters of faith, feel free to believe what you wish, or have been programmed, to believe.

On matters of fact and science, please try to get up to speed on what is known and proven, before you decide what you wish to make of that information.

Again, Origination and evolution are different topics and subjects.

The sudden appearances of human civilization on Earth doesn't need to be explained by the existence of any spirit god.

hambone johnson:

I really had to chuckle (and I don’t mean that as a put-down) when I read your inability to answer the basic questions I posed about evolution. Actually, I have to confess I knew all along that you couldn’t answer those questions, and you didn't disappoint. So, you merely represent another example of an advocate of evolution, who claims to “understand” that THEORY because of all the “overwhelming information”, yet cannot answer elementary questions about your own belief.

So, maybe I can assist you in answering the questions I posed about evolution. First, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE stated anywhere (at least as far as I can determine) asserting that abiogenesis (life arising by itself from inanimate matter through random processes) is a valid/reasonable concept. The FACT is that the LAW OF BIOGENESIS states just the opposite, i.e. all life comes from other life. In FACT, abiogenesis has never been observed or replicated in any laboratory (although many scientists have tried) AND Louis Pasteur’s experiments concluded that “abiogenesis is a dream.”

Second, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE asserting that complex information (like that in DNA) can arise by itself from inanimate matter through random processes. That whole concept is so ludicrous that I won’t even dignify it with further elaboration.

Third, Natural Selection may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest, but it does not explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest. It also doesn’t document (and you couldn’t either) a single convincing example where one animal changed into a completely different kind of animal.

Fourth, you conveniently ignored the FACT that animals of staggering complexity appeared throughout the world SUDDENLY and WITHOUT evolutionary precursors, according to the fossil record. That FACT alone severely undermines the whole THEORY of evolution.

With regard to the websites you directed me to:

The “list of human evolution fossils” website contained this statement in the SECOND paragraph: “Most of the fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to the study of the lineage.” That caveat means the information that was about to be presented is shaky and conjectural. Besides, some of the examples provided on that website have already been debunked as fraudulent (I listed the fraudulent examples in an earlier comment, so I won’t repeat them here).

In addition, the examples on that website are really obscure. By that I mean most readers probably never heard of those so-called examples of human evolution. So, I must ask, “Is that the best you can do?” Given the fact that there are countless humans and apes roaming the earth today, couldn’t you find better transitional examples that most people could relate to? Or maybe you could just show me how a fish evolved into a butterfly or whatever alleged example is in vogue right now, and then show me the fossils to prove it. Come on! There must be thousands of examples all of us can relate to IF macro-evolution were true.

Then there’s the “National Center for Science Education” website you asked me to visit. It contained these interesting sidebars next to the title: “Defending the teaching of evolution & climate science” AND “NCSE provides information and advice as the premiere institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keeping creationism and climate change denial out.” WOW!! How biased is that? And you get riled if I post a quote that can be traced to a creationist website. WHAT A GLARING DOUBLE STANDARD!!

In short, the “National Center for Science Education” website you directed me to is an admitted evolution website, which is indicative of your double standard. By that I mean you repeatedly protested when I used even tidbits of information from a creationist website and you immediately dismissed my information as lacking credibility. So, why do you think you can use information pulled from an evolution website without getting the same treatment from me? In short, why do you consider one website biased but not the other? That’s what I mean by your shameless, glaring double standard!

For the record, I was taught about evolution in high school and college without the inclusion of alternate viewpoints. But as I looked at the "evidence" for evolution more closely outside the classroom, I stumbled upon a wealth of reasonable/logical/scientific alternatives that cried out for attention. That's how I became convinced that a superior intelligence (God or whatever name you choose) had something to do with the sudden appearance of life on earth as well as with the existence of the universe itself. So I investigated BOTH sides of the THEORY of evolution. How many authors on this website have done the same?

So then, I guess the big difference between you and I is that you have a bigoted view of creationists, thinking that they can’t possibly have anything worthwhile to offer (how scientific is that?) while I’m willing to examine their arguments with an open mind. I can say that because I don’t automatically agree with everything the creationists say, but I’m willing to listen and perhaps learn. For example, I don’t agree with their claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

But many of their claims are worth pondering, especially in light of known scientific facts. For example, there are no convincing transitional examples ACROSS species in the fossil record when there should be millions, based upon standard expectations IF Darwinian evolution were true. Also, there is no know evidence showing that an ape can turn into a human, etc., which is what Darwinian evolution (i.e. macro-evolution) is all about. And no one has been able to produce biological life from inanimate material in a laboratory even though many have tried. And as far as I can tell, no human being or natural process has ever been able to produce something from nothing.

Those are examples of some of the valid arguments raised by creationists. So, I wouldn’t dismiss them outright as you do. Like I said before, that’s not scientific thinking. Instead, it smacks of elitism and a style of analysis that is filtered through the pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered at all. One thing I do agree with the creationists wholeheartedly though: God had a lot to do with how we got here. To believe otherwise defies common sense.

But don’t let FACTS get in the way of your agenda. Just continue believing in the fairy tale called the “Theory of Evolution.” I honestly don’t care. But I do have to chuckle about such a nonsensical THEORY.

The scientific principle is called natural selection

Yes hambone. I know what Natural selection is. We see it with observational empirical evidence. We see beaks changing in size, colors changing, something growing longer shorter eect ect .. BUT These are still the same species.. They still can reproduce with in their own kind.

You wont see a bird mating with reptile.. Why >? Because they are two different species that never had anything in common. They didnt come from the same thing, they were always birds, and always lizards. Now you may have all kinds of birds, but their still birds. You may have all kinds of lizards, but they are still lizards.

There are no fossils showing any kind of transition from a species into an entire new species.

Yes. But you're not going to find apes becoming human, that's already happened.

Darn, how convienent for science. Its a once in life time event that we all missed, but we are going to assume it happened because it needs to fit with in the Naturalistic Uniformitarianism atheistic world view. Ok i get it. But think about this. Does this evolution process happen all in unison at one time ?

I mean if humans came from some primoridal ooze, then why not there be 10000 piles of ooze back then all over the earth. Each ooze varies in age.. One ooze came into being from nothing and is 1 million years old, while the the other oozes vary in age from 5 million to 100 million years. Each ooze is going through its cycle of becoming more and more complex and its popping out more and more complex cells, and those cells are turning into more complex creatures and animals, apes and eventually humans.. But what about the other oozes that are behind.. wont they be in the process of making life ? Wouldnt there be a staggered chain of evolution process of animals slowly becoming humans ? This is a huge event that took place over hundreds of millions of years.. why wouldnt there be species that are in the process of becoming human ?

Just a one time event ? thats all I get ? we missed out ? no one seen it but we are going to presume it happened and we need to believe that main stream view with out no critical thinking, else be ostricized from the community ?

I cant take it.... HAHA

In all honesty Hambone, I know your intentions and beliefs are yours to be true, and I respect that, but I truly do find flaws in the thinking process when I am told to believe in an event that the evidence can not show that it happened. It is truly based off of faith and I am fine with that too if people wish to believe in it. Maybe one day we will be amazed by some wild discovery..

I did goto the website, right away I seen an example of a transitional fossil that is up for debate.

Tiktaalik roseae

http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link

ALSO Id like to point out this about other fish types. I clipped this and pasted it here.

Most evolutionists look to crossopterygian fish for the ancestors of tetrapods—even though unlike many living fish, none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water.

These fish have fleshy pectoral fins containing bony elements (considered similar to tetrapod legs). These similarities have prompted evolutionists to confidently declare that crossopterygians evolved into tetrapods.

According to evolutionists, the crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered.

This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!

At the very least, evolutionists expected to observe some hint of walking behavior in the coelacanth, but nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Coelacanths have been observed swimming backward, upside–down, and even standing on their head but they have never been observed to walk on land or in the sea.

If i get time I will go onto the other transitional fossils, but it will just be rebuttal liek this one. I dont have much more time today. I been too busy to sit down and reply to everything.

Marmaduke49:

In addition to the coelancaths that you mentioned, there was another supposedly extinct organism still found alive. It is called the pilina mollusk, which was believed to be extinct for 400 million years, leaving no remains other than fossils. However, in 1952 an identical mollusk was found alive at ocean depths of 12,000 feet. That startling discovery showed that this “living fossil” (as it was called) hadn’t evolved over 400 million years because the modern specimen looked exactly like its’ ancient ancestors.

That discovery is consistent with what Paleontologist Dr. Steven Jay Gould concluded about the fossil record when he noted that most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear. Evolutionists have no adequate explanation for such surprising discoveries.

In what way would you expect a mollusk, perfectly evolved to live at a depth of 12.000 feet, to change? How much change has there been in their habitat? Any mutations would probably die long before they could procreate.

Paul:

YOU WROTE: "In what way would you expect a mollusk, perfectly evolved to live at a depth of 12.000 feet, to change? How much change has there been in their habitat? Any mutations would probably die long before they could procreate."

MY RESPONSE: You are missing the BIG PICTURE, which is that most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear. That's exactly what Paleontologist, Dr. Steven Jay Gould (ironically, an evolution advocate) concluded from his study of the ENTIRE fossil record. So, the pilina mollusks and the coelancaths are CURRENT EXAMPLES of scientific evidence indicating that the THEORY of evolution has more holes in it than a truck load of Swiss cheese.

I believe in science; you believe in science fiction. But that's your prerogative.

I believe you should answer the question i asked.

They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear

Would you expect them to change after they have disappeared?

Paul:

YOU ASKED: "Would you expect them to change after they have disappeared?"

MY RESPONSE: I wouldn't expect them to change very much at all...whether they disappeared for a few million years, then suddenly reappeared as living specimens somewhere on earth OR if they left behind a continuous unbroken chain of fossils spanning eons of geologic time.

After all, that's exactly what Paleontologist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould told us to expect after he studied the overall fossil record. And all the subsequent scientific observations I'm aware of also tell us to expect little, if any, momentous changes in most of the species that ever existed.

Paul:

In my estimation, these four FACTS/CONCLUSIONS (which evolutionists CANNOT refute) undermine the THEORY of macro-evolution (forgive me if I keep repeating myself, but advocates of evolution leave me no alternative):

First, creatures of staggering complexity (trilobites, for example) appeared throughout the earth all at once and fully formed WITHOUT evolutionary precursors.

Second, the fossil record (now consisting of multiple-millions of fossils) lacks evidence that any animal changed into a completely different kind of animal.

Third, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, an icon in the world of Paleontology, admitted that “Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear.” (Professor Gould even went on to conclude in his book Evolution Now that there are no “missing links”; instead, he suggested that the whole chain is missing!)

Fourth, if most species did not change their appearance during millions of years on earth (as Dr. Gould concluded), that must mean there was no need to evolve - presumably because global conditions were ideal. So, if there was no need to evolve, why would evolution occur?

How can the Darwinian Theory of Evolution be taken seriously when faced with such contrary evidence?

Explained another way, the claim that all life which ever existed shares a common ancestor with a single organism that appeared maybe 3.5 billion years ago is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis. Moreover, no one has ever observed a fish produce something other than a fish, a bird produce something other than a bird, a cat produce something other than a cat, a dog produce something other than a dog, etc. The claim that it can be done is junk science. Genesis predicts animals bring forth their own “kind” (fish produce fish, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats); that is observable science. Every observed law of nature shows “Darwinian evolution” is a myth.

Everyone is welcome to accept macro-evolution by faith (akin to a religious belief), but it's not science. It’s more like science fiction.

Why, and how, would a dog change into something other than a dog, and be expected to flourish?

Trilobites are, were, an evolutionary dead end. They were as good as that evolutionary branch could be.

They weren't going to mutate into a monkey. And what you recognize as a monkey isn't going to mutate into a homosapien.

You seem to be, disingenuously, looking for something that you are never going to find. the fossil record is going to be populated with the temporary winners, not the mutated losers.

Paul:

YOU WROTE: "You (meaning me) seem to be, disingenuously, looking for something that you are never going to find. the fossil record is going to be populated with the temporary winners, not the mutated losers."

MY RESPONSE: Actually, you're the desperate one in this discussion, grasping at straws while struggling to invent any excuse you can conjure up to support your rigid adoration of Darwinian evolution. But just like your compatriot on this thread, you still cannot answer the basic questions I repeatedly asked about evolution...in fact, you continue to dodge those questions.

Oh, by the way, what scientific principle tells you that the fossil record should only contain the remnants of "temporary winners, not the mutated losers"? Common sense AND the Law of Probability indicate that the fossil record should contain more transitional examples of gradual change than the finished products if Darwinian evolution were valid. But the fossils of those transitional examples ("mutated losers") are nowhere to be found. Nevertheless, even that troubling clue doesn't bother you because you're close-minded about evolution.

Paul, your stubbornness is a pain to deal with in a discussion, but when it arises from a place other than facts or reason, it’s very unbecoming. Close-mindedness, stubbornness, zealotry, extremism, and an unwillingness to consider or admit the shortcomings of Darwinian evolution – these are your undoing.

I have to go to work now. Have a joyous Easter Holiday!

What question about evolution did i dodge? Your questions about evolution were answered. You didn't bother to answer any of mine.

Your actual argument is about ORIGINATION, not evolution, which you also don't appear to understand.

The fossil record isn't going to contain many, if any, mutated losers because they didn't make it.

First, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE stated anywhere (at least as far as I can determine) asserting that abiogenesis (life arising by itself from inanimate matter through random processes) is a valid/reasonable concept.

Which is why I said "I don't know" how it started. Do you even read what I'm writing or just prepare your overly long diatribes while pretending to comprehend my answers. Abiogenesis = I don't know. But since it has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution, why would I have to answer you?

Stop trying to put the two together... your trying to destroy an argument I'm not making. I believe that's called a "strawman".

the examples on that website are really obscure.

Why are you moving the goalpost? You asked for examples; I supplied them. Now you want less obscure examples?

How about this: YOU give ME examples of a creature that arose out of nowhere with absolutely no ancestors. Did dolphins just appear? But remember, no obscure animals... no mollusks or strange extinct rodents.

WOW!! How biased is that?

So, you're unwilling to read a website that uses actual science to prove scientific theories, but you're happy to go to an unreliable, quote-mining creationist website? Fine. You've proven how vacuous your argument is and how heavily you rely on bad science and worse arguments.

At this point, it's starting to get less fun and more annoying.

Actually, you're the desperate one in this discussion, grasping at straws while struggling to invent any excuse you can conjure up to support your rigid adoration of Darwinian evolution. But just like your compatriot on this thread, you still cannot answer the basic questions I repeatedly asked about evolution...in fact, you continue to dodge those questions.

Hi Rhonda,

Marmaduke suggest I come over here and have a conversation with you.

Having read thru a couple of your posts I'm having difficulty in determining what your position is other than to suggest that "evolutionists" (Can I be called a gravitationist? Cause I like that theory better) (We understand it less), are wrong.

So you don't ascribe to evolution, I get that. But what are you saying is the alternative?

Hambone , I am aware myself that the two are two separate issues how ever they do rely on each other and run into one another.

World view is that everything came into existence from a singular point. Over time this explosion of matter some how made life come into being. The assumption is that human life came from this primordial ooze over a period of time. So if we go back to this ooze, where did it come from ? This organic matter is the first step in the thinking process. Your building your case off of that it exists.

How ever that is assuming it truly ever existed, and that is where the abiogenesis comes into play. If you dont know how the ooze got there, then how do you know it truly existed at all ?

It all comes down to a time when there is no way to know for sure, its all assumption

Marmaduke,

I understand what you're asking, but I've already admitted I don't know where the "goo" came from. That does not make evolution any less of a proven fact. As a matter of fact, biologists have more support and evidence for the theory of evolution than physicists do for gravity. Is gravity, then, ONLY A THEORY?

Here's the thing: Since I don't know where it all started, I freely admit "I don't know" but you also don't know where it all started, yet claim to. Who's being more honest?

Paul:

Unlike you and hambone johnson, I CANNOT separate “origination” from “evolution” because the latter could not occur without the former. Therefore, in that regard the two concepts are inexorably connected. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest. That’s like claiming to understand how a machine operates without knowing how to start it! How competent would such a machinist be?

So, for the LAST time, I’ll ask once again, what SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE describes how life can arise by itself from lifeless matter through random processes for no apparent reason? (and is this still occurring?...if not, why not?)

Second, what SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE describes how incredibly complex information (such as that contained in DNA) can emerge by itself from lifeless matter through random processes for no apparent reason? (and is this still happening?...if not, why not?)

Third, what SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE shows that any animal can change into a completely different kind of animal? (and is this still happening?...if not, why not?)

Fourth, why does the fossil record show that animals of staggering complexity suddenly appeared throughout the earth WITHOUT evolutionary precursors? (doesn’t that fact alone UNDERMINE the Darwinian Theory of evolution?...if not, why not?)

I'll wait for your answers.

Oh, I almost forgot:

YOU WROTE: “The fossil record isn't going to contain many, if any, mutated losers because they didn't make it.”

MY RESPONSE: Says who? That statement is utter nonsense. Logically, there ought to be more transitional organisms in the fossil record than final versions. And because the fossilization process presumably has been ongoing during the evolutionary process, it’s reasonable to infer that the evolutionary “losers” as well as the evolutionary “winners” should BOTH appear in the fossil record. But the transitional examples are curiously absent. That tells us that gradualism, which is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolutionary theory, is a myth. Nevertheless, disciples of evolution, like you, continue to spew arguments with no basis in facts. How gullible is that?

hambone johnson:

YOU WROTE: “How about this: YOU give ME examples of a creature that arose out of nowhere with absolutely no ancestors. Did dolphins just appear? But remember, no obscure animals... no mollusks or strange extinct rodents.”

MY RESPONSE: I already did that. The organism is called “trilobite”, which just about everyone who merely dabbles in Paleontology, Historical Geology, or other earth sciences is familiar with. I'm guessing you're informed enough to have heard about "trilobites" too. In fact, one of my college Geology teachers found a few trilobite fossils when doing field work toward his PhD. But if that’s not enough, multitudes of flying insects have also appear in the fossil record WITHOUT ancestors.

Anyway, the burden of proof for supporting Darwinian evolution is really on YOU (rather than on me for disproving it) because you and your admirers claim it’s factual. In other words, YOU should have to prove your POSITIVE assertion while I’m under no obligation to supply a NEGATIVE rebuttal. That's how the rules of logical reasoning work.

Finally, when BOTH websites you sent me to wreak with bias to the degree that one of them even BOASTS that it’s in business specifically to deny the airing of creationism (an alternate point of view), I’m immediately “turned off” (as any clear-thinking person should be). After all, why would a website that's genuinely “scientific” be so fearful of ANY competing ideas? That just doesn’t wash with me. But maybe you're a fan of such naked bias.

Marmaduke49

hambone johnson

Marmaduke,

I understand what you're asking, but I've already admitted I don't know where the "goo" came from. That does not make evolution any less of a proven fact. As a matter of fact, biologists have more support and evidence for the theory of evolution than physicists do for gravity. Is gravity, then, ONLY A THEORY?

Here's the thing: Since I don't know where it all started, I freely admit "I don't know" but you also don't know where it all started, yet claim to. Who's being more honest?

So then I would be happy to end our debate on the key of " WE dont know "

Finally, when BOTH websites you sent me to wreak with bias to the degree that one of them even BOASTS that it’s in business specifically to deny the airing of creationism (an alternate point of view), I’m immediately “turned off” (as any clear-thinking person should be). After all, why would a website that's genuinely “scientific” be so fearful of ANY competing ideas? That just doesn’t wash with me. But maybe you're a fan of such naked bias.

I some times see the Creation side doing the same things too. Like if anything is in conflict with the bible then it is automatically discarded. In answers in Genesis website, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

I understand their meaning and where they are coming from, but that statement opens up a free for all to be criticized . It makes it sound like they dont use science at all. Like for example, if world view says that there was only local flooding, and the AIG people say, well the bible says it was global, case closed. That to me doesnt cut it. I would think if there was a global flood, then there should be evidence for it, which there is. Does it prove there was one ? I never said I can say 100 % for sure, but we can look at the evidence and show that there was one. Once again none of us was there to witness it to confirm or deny it.

I personally have not run into anything in conflict. Its both sides starting point views, biblical view or world view. They both look at the same evidence but come up with different answers.

I have no issues with both being taught in school. Even Ken Ham , founder of Answers in Genesis would agree that both should be taught. It allows a person to critically think for themselves. If you automatically say that any other views should be disregarded, then you start to turn people in to lemmings. Just mindless zombies who only know what they are told and never allowed to think for themselves.

losghost:

I'm not comfortable with most labels, so I don't know what descriptive term best suits my belief system. My beliefs probably are closest to creationism, but I don't think I'm a stereotypical creationist because I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time humans did or that a worldwide flood (as opposed to a regional flood) occurred or that the universe was created in only six literal days.

But I've always been amazed by the arrogant attitude of non-believers who mock scriptural passages regarding creation. Skeptics scoff at the idea that everything was created in six days. This arrogance stems from people basing all their knowledge on earthly-based standards. For example, non-believers fall into the trap of assuming that a day has to consist of 24 hours everywhere in the universe, as if we are the center of the universe. However, we already know that the length of a day varies considerably on every planet in our own solar system, so how can an earth-day be the standard measurement for everywhere else in this vast universe?

Besides, the earth and all of its inhabitants didn't even exist when God initially created the universe, so why should we think that a day back then for God is the same as a day right now for us? That thinking is not only arrogant and foolish, but ludicrous too. Consider these words from 2 Peter 3:8-14: “Do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.” But I digress.

I guess it all boils down to which alternative seems more plausible, based on what we already know: 1.) either the primordial soup always existed and developed into the universe on its own (without anyone even knowing what caused the process to begin), or 2.) God always existed and He created the universe.

If the primordial soup (or MATERIAL ingredients of the universe) always existed, then the First Law of Thermodynamics (nothing comes from nothing) is violated. And so is the Law of Cause and Effect. Moreover, if life developed on its own from inanimate objects, then the Law of Biogenesis is violated, too. Also, how do we account for the other properties of the universe, such as time and natural laws? Where did those properties come from? Could they just pop up from thin air with no intelligent input?

I read somewhere that a statistician determined the universe is not old enough yet for all the complexity, design, and order we know about today to have developed purely by random chance. And how does science explain away all the violated laws that it says govern the MATERIAL world?

In addition, why do theorists have to invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain the properties of our universe (such as oscillating or parallel or alternate universes or the existence of a hundred billion other universes that we know nothing about in order to account for the only universe we can ever possibly experience) when there is a simple explanation readily at hand? The logical explanation for why the universe is so orderly and intelligible and favorable for life is that an intelligent being made it that way.

Common sense tells me it’s more plausible that an eternal supreme being (God) exists in the spiritual realm where the laws of nature DO NOT APPLY (even modern physics concedes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply), and that SPIRITUAL SUPREME being could have created the primordial soup from nothing by temporarily suspending the laws of nature that He Himself made. Keep in mind that whatever created time and matter and the laws of nature logically must exist OUTSIDE time and matter and the laws of nature. So, a spiritual supreme being, or God, could have always existed WITHOUT violating any of the scientific laws that apply to the NATURAL/MATERIAL world (meanwhile, there are no limitations that we know of in the spiritual world). So, God could be an eternal spirit who created the universe and everything in it by temporarily suspending the laws that govern the NATURAL/MATERIAL world because HE made those laws.

In summary, which alternative makes more sense? 1.) NOTHING working on behalf of NOTHING for NOTHING through NOTHING created EVERYTHING?..or 2.) An eternal, intelligent MIND (God) residing in the spiritual world created the MATERIAL universe and everything in it? I’m going with alternative 2!

Maybe I'm a semi-creationist, a para-creationist, a quasi-creationist, or some other type of modified creationist. I don't know because I don't dwell on such labels or concern myself with them.

I do know one thing, though: I’m not a Biblical scholar. But there is one scriptural quote I heard that sums up my feelings very accurately: “The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

I cant say I have never think about the atheist view . I used to be one and I still like to play devils advocate with my Friend who is a pastor and College professor.

If God doesnt exist, and this entire universe and every thing about it is based off of a natural law then this universe had to have always existed. It would have to be an eternal because there is no way that existence and matter can come into being from non being. Something has had to have always of existed at some point and state. So perhaps it could be a universe that grows and then finally collapses upon itself and gets sucked up back into some massive black hole, to become an infinite point that just explodes again some day and a new universe is born. This has been going on for eternity. Who knows how many endless generations of people there have been in endless years have already passed in an infinite time scale. Maybe this earth has already existed for hundreds of thousands of years with so many life forms , a billion times over already.

Maybe this is the 1 billionth time the universe has blew from its tiny speck into this great mass, and this is a society that has existed for its 1 billionth time already. Or maybe you cant even put a number on it because of the universe being eternal.

When you start thinking like that, it really starts to blow your mind away thinking of the limitless, and the grand feeling of eternity.

That always went to the argument of Cause and effect, and also when did God begin ? I think it was Thomas Aquinas who said that a self created God isnt possible, but a self existent God is.

The universe has to be self existent or God is.

Now can science back up or prove that the universe is eternal ? This would be an assumption, since there is no way in the world to test this hypothesis. Taking into consideration all the laws of causality, thermo dynamics, or any other laws and rules.

So yes I do critically think about many things even as i believe in something as simple as saying, God did it. If there wasnt any history to God, writings, prophecies, a man who came and fulfilled them, died for us, and so many who died for defending their faith in Christ, then yes I would probably have been a different person and belief system. It took many many years of thinking about all of this, and researching, soul searching deep inside to find what is true to me.

Ramming the THEORY of evolution down the throats of high school students (or any students for that matter) without mentioning competing theories is intellectually dishonest.

I'd teach students about the major points AND flaws of evolution AND the major points AND flaws of competing theories to include creationism. That doesn't require unmanageable amounts of data. Then I'd spark a debate/discussion among the students and let them decide which theory they like best and maybe write a paper explaining why. That way, they could hone their organizational and analytical skills rather than having evolution forced upon them without mentioning the flaws in evolution or the competing theories. Then I'd respect the decisions my students made for themselves as long as those decisions were laid out logically and coherently. In fact, I've already done that (I taught in a private school) and my students loved the class so much that it became one of the most requested classes for the next semester. And guess what? Some of the students I rewarded with an "A" chose to believe evolution over creationism and other theories. Nevertheless, I still gave them an "A" for eager participation in discussions, open-mindedness, and the willingness to explore ALL sides of the issue. I'd wager that public school students, who are only exposed to evolution, don't get that kind of free-thinking encouragement.

I have a question for secular evolutionists: why do you fear the competing theory of creationism? Why do you resist creationism being presented ALONG WITH EVOLUTION in the arena of ideas? I suspect that secular evolutionists don't have enough confidence in their own beliefs to defend themselves against the competition.

All I'm saying is that evolution AND creationism are COMPETING ANSWERS to the same question - how did we get here? I expressed my opinion with lots of supporting evidence, but I don't care whether or not I changed anybody else's view. That's not my mission or goal. I simply questioned the theory of evolution and offered an alternative for readers to consider.

@Rhonda

I'm not comfortable with most labels, so I don't know what descriptive term best suits my belief system. My beliefs probably are closest to creationism, but I don't think I'm a stereotypical creationist because I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time humans did or that a worldwide flood (as opposed to a regional flood) occurred or that the universe was created in only six literal days.

I'm curious. Certain fundamentalist creationists view the bible in a very literal sense and truly believe these things. I understand you do not, however, it appears to me that you believe in god and that you believe he created everything.

This is also something stated in the bible. My question to you is what mechanism do you use to discern the parts you think are true from the parts you think are false?

But I've always been amazed by the arrogant attitude of non-believers who mock scriptural passages regarding creation. Skeptics scoff at the idea that everything was created in six days. This arrogance stems from people basing all their knowledge on earthly-based standards. For example, non-believers fall into the trap of assuming that a day has to consist of 24 hours everywhere in the universe, as if we are the center of the universe. However, we already know that the length of a day varies considerably on every planet in our own solar system, so how can an earth-day be the standard measurement for everywhere else in this vast universe?

I can see how certain confidence can be taken as arrogance, however, that said, non-believers are not exactly cornering that market, wouldn't you agree?

Why would you believe that the people that wrote and assembled the bible would be referring to other than 24 hour days? I've read the bible a few times and cannot recall such a reference to anything other than that.

In fact, there is no evidence in the bible that the folks that assembled it even knew what other planets were so I'm not sure how they would have known what other planetary measures would be?

Besides, the earth and all of its inhabitants didn't even exist when God initially created the universe, so why should we think that a day back then for God is the same as a day right now for us? That thinking is not only arrogant and foolish, but ludicrous too. Consider these words from 2 Peter 3:8-14: “Do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.” But I digress.

Yes, I understand that god is described as transcending time and space but what corroborates your argument that the time described in the bible is not the time we measure now? If one were to simply look at the facts on both sides of this discussion they would be hard pressed to come to that conclusion or suggest that it's a rationale to support an inconsistency, no?

I guess it all boils down to which alternative seems more plausible, based on what we already know: 1.) either the primordial soup always existed and developed into the universe on its own (without anyone even knowing what caused the process to begin), or 2.) God always existed and He created the universe.

This is fallacious logic. You are stating what is called a "false dilemma" insisting that there are only two possible sources of life on earth and seem to be confusing the start of life on earth with the start of the universe, if it ever actually had a start.

There are many problems you face with asserting god as a cause alternative:

1. That there exists multiple religions and supernatural explanations for the origin of life and the universe across all cultures and walks of human life.

2. You have to overcome that man has a penchant for creating gods, esp, in multiple cultures time periods.

3. That almost all of those gods are attributed with creation in one aspect or another, or the mythology surrounding them.

4. All current religions, including and excluding god heads also claim exclusive "absolute truth" and that all other religions are false. (I assume this would be your claim as well).

5. That subjective reasoning of primitive people is reliable in their understanding of their environment and why the writers of the bible in particular require special pleading compared to all others during the time period.

6. That since the invention of the roman library, not a single miracle is recorded by any imperial historian or outside of the bible.

Then you have multiple discussions as to the origins of the universe by highly educated, highly intelligent people. There is oscillating universe theory, multi-verse, big bang, et al.

So it's not exactly an either-or here. Creationists and theists also have their work cut out for them to prove their position. It's not just scientists and physicists.

If the primordial soup (or MATERIAL ingredients of the universe) always existed, then the First Law of Thermodynamics (nothing comes from nothing) is violated. And so is the Law of Cause and Effect. Moreover, if life developed on its own from inanimate objects, then the Law of Biogenesis is violated, too. Also, how do we account for the other properties of the universe, such as time and natural laws? Where did those properties come from? Could they just pop up from thin air with no intelligent input?

Does god violate the first law of thermodynamics? If he does, then why would it not be possible for anything else to? It's interesting that much stock is put into that scientific principle but no others.

Scientific laws are based on observations. The wonderful thing about science is those laws change as new evidence is presented. They are not canon or doctrine. They are subject to change.

Think about this, when Newton (An avid Christian btw) had to describe his findings, he couldn't do it with the math he had so he had to invent new math.

How do you arrive at observations of the universe directly to intelligent input? You are equivocating the term "laws" a little bit to assert that they are constants, they are not.

I read somewhere that a statistician determined the universe is not old enough yet for all the complexity, design, and order we know about today to have developed purely by random chance. And how does science explain away all the violated laws that it says govern the MATERIAL world?

Interesting. I would love to read that if you have a reference. I work for a PhD in statistics doing analysis.

I would also love to see a reference on which scientist claims that it all started by random chance. I do not recall any.

In addition, why do theorists have to invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain the properties of our universe (such as oscillating or parallel or alternate universes or the existence of a hundred billion other universes that we know nothing about in order to account for the only universe we can ever possibly experience) when there is a simple explanation readily at hand? The logical explanation for why the universe is so orderly and intelligible and favorable for life is that an intelligent being made it that way.

You are right. God did it is certainly a simple explanation. That said, I'm sure glad someone didn't stop at that when they discovered how to eradicate smallpox, polio, or rubella.

Have you ever reflected on why want to have a simple answer? I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to know that someone giving you a simple answer isn't the simplest answer.

How do you arrive at the universe being orderly? From what I understand, we only have a very very cursory understanding of only a small portion of it. What makes you so certain?

Also, considering of the universe we do know of, pretty much 99.99999% (anecdotal) of it is hostile to any life, let alone human life.

Solar flares, radiation storms, black holes, meteorites and asteroids, supernovas, etc. I don't think I can agree with you on things being so orderly.

Common sense tells me it’s more plausible that an eternal supreme being (God) exists in the spiritual realm where the laws of nature DO NOT APPLY (even modern physics concedes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply), and that SPIRITUAL SUPREME being could have created the primordial soup from nothing by temporarily suspending the laws of nature that He Himself made. Keep in mind that whatever created time and matter and the laws of nature logically must exist OUTSIDE time and matter and the laws of nature. So, a spiritual supreme being, or God, could have always existed WITHOUT violating any of the scientific laws that apply to the NATURAL/MATERIAL world (meanwhile, there are no limitations that we know of in the spiritual world). So, God could be an eternal spirit who created the universe and everything in it by temporarily suspending the laws that govern the NATURAL/MATERIAL world because HE made those laws.

I see. So common sense would suggest that there is a mystical being that transcends time and space and that the laws of nature do not apply, however, the only way this being communicates with us is through natural means.

You are right, a spiritual being could have created it all. I for one could not assert such a negative but then again, I couldn't assert it for the flying teapot or spaghetti monster either. At that point god, the teapot, and spaghetti monster (from an unbiased point of view) are all on equal footing.

Again you equivocate the term "laws" from science to mean both scientific observations and a law one would declare or invoke.

You haven't been able to prove that god exists yet so you cannot assert that he made any laws. We're still at peg one here.

In summary, which alternative makes more sense? 1.) NOTHING working on behalf of NOTHING for NOTHING through NOTHING created EVERYTHING?..or 2.) An eternal, intelligent MIND (God) residing in the spiritual world created the MATERIAL universe and everything in it? I’m going with alternative 2!

Again, this is another false dilemma. Nothing working for nothing? I'm not sure what that means to be honest.

We see natural interactions all the time. We also see new ones that were predicted with current ones. Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to present something that by your claims is beyond natural laws but operate only in natural laws ie: floods, creation, light, dark, etc.

What makes you so certain of this "spiritual realm"?

Maybe I'm a semi-creationist, a para-creationist, a quasi-creationist, or some other type of modified creationist. I don't know because I don't dwell on such labels or concern myself with them.

Maybe you are just a Christian? I dunno, you could be Jewish, or a Muslim. You all believe in the same god you know.

I do know one thing, though: I’m not a Biblical scholar. But there is one scriptural quote I heard that sums up my feelings very accurately: “The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

It's certainly a great way to create the concept that only fools don't believe what I say but hardly helps you arrive at truth.

But you need to finish the psalm. You only mentioned half of psalm 14:1.

You missed this part:

They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

I think that's rather "arrogant" to suggest that no atheist ever has done good and all their deeds are vile. I know plenty of atheists that help save lives every day (if you consider that of value).

I've helped plenty of people, I've volunteered to feed the homeless, spent 14 years in the military, I work in a hospital that helps people with sever disabilities improve their lives.

Do you consider those "deeds" vile and not "good"?

If you do not, then how could the first part of the psalm be true? It's one verse:

The fool^[a] says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

The psalm is really meant to show someone who is morally deficient. I think I've can show that I'm actually above the morality of the bible if you care to have that discussion. Plus, I can do good and do not need a book to tell me how to do it. What does that mean?

@Rhonda,

I'll take a crack at this.

I think first we need to clarify a few things.

In science, a theory and a law are not the same as a hunch and a rule.

A law describes what something is doing.

A theory explains why it is doing what it is doing.

In this case, the law "evolution" or rather the five laws that Darwin presented explain observations of what happens.

The theory of evolution is regarding why it happens: ie, Natural Selection.

Ramming the THEORY of evolution down the throats of high school students (or any students for that matter) without mentioning competing theories is intellectually dishonest.

How is that any different than "ramming" biology, sociology, math, or any other subject down their throats. Why do you specifically single out evolution? They teach gravity and that is much MUCH more controversial in it's explanations. I mean, if the theory having flaws is your primary reason for rejecting it, then you should be all over gravity. Why is that not the case?

I would suggest that's because it does not contradict biblical canon where evolution does.

I'd teach students about the major points AND flaws of evolution AND the major points AND flaws of competing theories to include creationism.

First off, you would be violating the constitution of the United States establishment clause. Second, creationism is not a competing theory. It's a religious assertion. Where outside of the bible can you find anything to corroborate this assertion?

I'm perfectly ok with pointing out flaws in evolution. In fact, that's how do you do good science.

That doesn't require unmanageable amounts of data. Then I'd spark a debate/discussion among the students and let them decide which theory they like best and maybe write a paper explaining why. That way, they could hone their organizational and analytical skills rather than having evolution forced upon them without mentioning the flaws in evolution or the competing theories.

Whats wrong with having this discussion in a church? Why does it need to happen in a school? Again, creationism isn't a competing theory, it has, by your admission, no scientific data whatsoever, is beyond natural means, and no one can measure or test it. It's supernatural or mystical or for lack of a more specific term: Magic.

Then I'd respect the decisions my students made for themselves as long as those decisions were laid out logically and coherently. In fact, I've already done that (I taught in a private school) and my students loved the class so much that it became one of the most requested classes for the next semester. And guess what? Some of the students I rewarded with an "A" chose to believe evolution over creationism and other theories. Nevertheless, I still gave them an "A" for eager participation in discussions, open-mindedness, and the willingness to explore ALL sides of the issue. I'd wager that public school students, who are only exposed to evolution, don't get that kind of free-thinking encouragement.

It's ironic that you would suggest that students get 'free-thinking" encouragement. I'm ok with that with one caveat. That religious schools then teach "free thinking" in that what they are teaching may not actually be true and competing theories on life origins.

Are you ok with that? Is that a good compromise?

I have a question for secular evolutionists: why do you fear the competing theory of creationism? Why do you resist creationism being presented ALONG WITH EVOLUTION in the arena of ideas? I suspect that secular evolutionists don't have enough confidence in their own beliefs to defend themselves against the competition.

Why do you characterize it as a fear? It's not fear to not want to teach unsubstantiated religious dogma as fact.

All I'm saying is that evolution AND creationism are COMPETING ANSWERS to the same question - how did we get here? I expressed my opinion with lots of supporting evidence, but I don't care whether or not I changed anybody else's view. That's not my mission or goal. I simply questioned the theory of evolution and offered an alternative for readers to consider.

First off, there is not a single scientific peer reviewed journal that even comes close to accepting creationism as a competing scientific answer to evolution. There is nothing outside of the bible you could use to make an argument for it.

Second, a US court judge (A religious one btw) ruled that ID (Intelligent Design) is creationism and that creationism is not science.

See: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for the legal proceedings surrounding the details why your "alternative" was not considered an alternative at all but rather a dishonest attempt to put a specific religious dogma into public schools.

The decision was overwhelming and conclusion reached by a Christian judge, Judge John E. Jones III.

The last and most important take away from this is that teaching creationism in schools would violate the establishment clause of the United States constitution.

The very right that gives you freedom of religion also gives you freedom from religion. I've heard a few Christians attempt to argue that it's only freedom of, however, if you ever studied anything about the founding fathers, you would learn that they specifically invoked a secular constitution to protect against agencies like the church of England.

That's protection *from* religion.

losghost:

Apparently, you misunderstood many things I wrote. You also attributed many things to me that I did not write or even imply. But that’s okay because you entered this discussion late in the game, so you’re probably not aware of all my comments. Anyway, I’ll try to answer your questions as best as I can without excessively repeating what I’ve already posted.

I'll write your questions below in bold letters; my answers follow immediately in parenthesis.

Here’s a list of some of the things you apparently misunderstood:

--“My question to you is what mechanism do you use to discern the parts (of the Bible) you think are true from the parts you think are false?” (I’ve already stated I usually have a problem determining which Biblical passages are to be taken literally and which passages are meant to be metaphors/parables; however, when a passage is straightforward and obviously leaves no room for confusion, such as “The fool says in his heart there is no God”, I accept the obvious literal translation. However, with regard to creating the universe in only six days, even the Bible says that “...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.” So, that passage makes me scoff at those who insist that “six days” is meant to be translated literally and according to an earthly standard. In any case, I really don’t obsess with the precise meaning of scriptural passages because that usually results in nit-picky squabbles that don’t get resolved.)

--“Why would you believe that the people that wrote and assembled the bible would be referring to other than 24 hour days? I've read the bible a few times and cannot recall such a reference to anything other than that...In fact, there is no evidence in the bible that the folks that assembled it even knew what other planets were so I'm not sure how they would have known what other planetary measures would be?” (I think I’ve already answered that question – see above. One day to the Lord is like a thousand years, etc., so the men who wrote the Bible may not have fully comprehended God’s meaning for “one day.” Also, I made reference to the planets as a modern analogy for explaining how “one day” has a different meaning depending on where you are in the solar system and/or universe. So, even though the folks who wrote the Bible presumably knew nothing about the planets, God knew about the planets and all the time differentials in His creation).

--“Does god violate the first law of thermodynamics? If he does, then why would it not be possible for anything else to? It's interesting that much stock is put into that scientific principle but no others.” (I’ve already answered those questions a few times, so I won’t repeat myself here)

--“Scientific laws are based on observations. The wonderful thing about science is those laws change as new evidence is presented. They are not canon or doctrine. They are subject to change.” (That’s fine, but none of the scientific laws I’ve cited have been challenged by new credible evidence. For example, what new credible evidence exists to negate the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from other life)?

--“How do you arrive at observations of the universe directly to intelligent input?” (When we find “specified complexity” we know we have an especially reliable indicator of intelligent design. Chance can explain away some complexities, but not specified complexities. For example, a random sequence of letters is complex, but not specified ((and therefore meaningless)). But a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified ((and therefore meaningful)). The logical conclusion is that you can’t have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. In other words, just as a poem requires a poet and a painting requires a painter, the world’s incredible designs, which continually amaze the most intelligent scientists on earth, demand an intelligent Designer.)

--“Have you ever reflected on why want to have a simple answer? I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to know that someone giving you a simple answer isn't the simplest answer.” (Following the advice of Occam’s razor, when there are a variety of possible explanations, go with the one that requires the fewest assumptions. This means you don’t have to invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain the properties of our universe when there is a much simpler, more obvious explanation readily at hand. So, let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time: in my opinion, the best explanation for why the universe is so orderly and intelligible and favorable for life is that an intelligent being made it that way.)

--“How do you arrive at the universe being orderly?” (Mathematical measurements/scientific assessments of the universe show it to be very orderly. Otherwise, scientific predictions ((for example, in astronomy)) and meaningful studies would be impossible if the universe were utterly chaotic. We now have an optical clock that achieves amazing accuracy by measuring time with light. Time is now measured in femtoseconds, or a million-billionth of a second, so an optical clock only slips one second every 30 billion years! How could such incomprehensible precision in the universe - the basis for an optical clock - be associated with chaos?)

--“Nothing working for nothing? I'm not sure what that means to be honest.” (At least you’re honest. I’m claiming that secular evolutionists want us to believe that everything ultimately resulted from nothing and for no apparent reason. In essence, they are claiming that the universe created itself and for no apparent reason. Thus, they are essentially theorizing that NOTHING working on behalf of NOTHING for NOTHING through NOTHING created EVERYTHING. How convincing is that?)

Here’s a list of things I didn’t write or even imply:

--“I can see how certain confidence can be taken as arrogance, however, that said, non-believers are not exactly cornering that market, wouldn't you agree?” (Yes, I agree)

--“You are stating what is called a 'false dilemma' insisting that there are only two possible sources of life on earth and seem to be confusing the start of life on earth with the start of the universe, if it ever actually had a start.” (I did propose two possible sources for the origin of the universe and everything in it, but I did NOT write or even imply that life on earth started simultaneously with the creation of the universe. Also, I have never heard about a third, fourth, or additional alternatives for the origin of the universe and how we got here. Moreover, science tells us that the only universe we know about began with the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. And I’ve already explained in an earlier comment how Madam Curie proved the universe cannot be eternal.)

--“All current religions, including and excluding god heads also claim exclusive ‘absolute truth’ and that all other religions are false. (I assume this would be your claim as well).” (Many religions do make that claim, but I don’t subscribe to any such notion, so please don’t make reckless assumptions about me. My husband, who is a Christian – I’m a Deist – summed up BOTH of our thoughts about religion when he pointed out this verse in the Bible, “Peter proceeded to speak to those gathered in the house of Cornelius, saying: “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.” Acts 10:34-38)

--“So it's not exactly an either-or here. Creationists and theists also have their work cut out for them to prove their position. It's not just scientists and physicists.” (Nobody has to prove anything. Besides, both Darwinian evolution AND creation cannot be proved. We just have to look at the scientific facts and make our best judgment as to which alternative makes more sense.

--“Think about this, when Newton (An avid Christian btw) had to describe his findings, he couldn't do it with the math he had so he had to invent new math.” (I have a problem with your use of the word “invent.” I don’t believe Newton “invented” new math; rather he discovered new math, which already existed. It’s like claiming that Columbus “invented” the new world (America); instead, Columbus discovered the new world (America), which already existed.

--“You haven't been able to prove that god exists yet so you cannot assert that he made any laws. We're still at peg one here.” (I never claimed I could PROVE that God exists, and YOU may be at peg one here, but I’m not. For the umpteenth time, here’s what I actually wrote and claimed in one of my earliest comments: While the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically in a laboratory, there are enough clues to conclude that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the existence of God is clearly indicated by an honest examination of the Argument from Design, two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis, clues from the Fossil Record, the Existence of Conscience, and the Wisdom of the Ages. These arguments collectively provide enough of a starting point to rightly conclude that a Higher Being of some kind exists.

--“Maybe you are just a Christian? I dunno, you could be Jewish, or a Muslim. You all believe in the same god you know.” (I’m a Deist, and I never claimed that believers believe in different Gods; instead, I’ve claimed that believers worship the same God differently.)

--“I think that's rather "arrogant" to suggest that no atheist ever has done good and all their deeds are vile.” (I never made that claim; you did)

-- “Plus, I can do good and do not need a book to tell me how to do it. What does that mean?” (I never wrote or even implied that you need any book to do good. So, your statement means nothing to me. How do you come up with these imaginations?)

I’ve got other chores to do now. I cannot devote all of my time answering your questions, especially those which I’ve already answered several times before.

losghost:

CONTINUED:

--“How is that any different than "ramming" biology, sociology, math, or any other subject down their throats. Why do you specifically single out evolution? They teach gravity and that is much MUCH more controversial in it's explanations. I mean, if the theory having flaws is your primary reason for rejecting it, then you should be all over gravity. Why is that not the case? I would suggest that's because it does not contradict biblical canon where evolution does.” (Try to calm down. During my experiences in the classroom, I’ve always encouraged and even congratulated any student who challenged some point I taught about science or any other subject. In fact, I’ve invited students to explain their objections to the whole class in order to determine if the objection merited further discussion. Also, I don’t own a Bible (my husband does) and I don’t rely on that book for my overall belief system, so please stop making baseless assumptions about me and a rigid Bible connection.)

--“First off, you would be violating the constitution of the United States establishment clause. Second, creationism is not a competing theory. It's a religious assertion. Where outside of the bible can you find anything to corroborate this assertion?” (My experience was teaching in a private school where the United States establishment clause is irrelevant. I still maintain that creationism is a competing theory because of the reams of scientific clues, philosophical thought, logical deductions, and common sense conclusions I’ve already presented, which are NOT associated with religion per se. For example, I mentioned that Charles B. Thaxton ((who holds a PhD in Chemistry and is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University)) wrote that “…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.”)

--“Whats wrong with having this discussion in a church? Why does it need to happen in a school? Again, creationism isn't a competing theory, it has, by your admission, no scientific data whatsoever, is beyond natural means, and no one can measure or test it. It's supernatural or mystical or for lack of a more specific term: Magic” (Why shouldn’t it happen in a school? Isn’t that a place for learning? Also, I never admitted that creationism has no supporting scientific data; I just mentioned some in the paragraph above, so please stop making misleading assumptions about what I wrote. Moreover, BOTH evolution AND creationism cannot be measured or tested scientifically. So, if creationism is mystical or magic, so is Darwinian evolution. In fact, I’d say that Darwinian evolution is science fiction.)

--“It's ironic that you would suggest that students get 'free-thinking" encouragement. I'm ok with that with one caveat. That religious schools then teach "free thinking" in that what they are teaching may not actually be true and competing theories on life origins.” (I’ve already agreed with that concept; do you read my comments with comprehension? I already stated that the pros and cons of BOTH evolution AND creationism should be taught in ANY ARENA/CLASSROOM ((religious or secular)) to generate discussions and let the students decide for themselves which alternative makes more sense. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself? Sheeeeeeeeeesh)

--“Why do you characterize it as a fear? It's not fear to not want to teach unsubstantiated religious dogma as fact.” (I never proposed teaching creationism as fact; instead, I proposed teaching it as an alternate THEORY for how we got here. Besides, Darwinian evolution is NOT a fact; it’s a THEORY, too, with lots of holes in it, yet it's taught as a fact without alternatives. How scientific is that? When alternative THEORIES, such as creationism, are banned from a classroom, that indicates fear to me...fear that inquiring minds might latch on to a competing idea which is not politically correct.)

--“... a US court judge (A religious one btw) ruled that ID (Intelligent Design) is creationism and that creationism is not science.” (So what? The U.S. Supreme Court, which allegedly consists of the brightest legal minds in the country, once ruled that Dred Scott was not fully human. The Court even assigned a precise fraction to Dred Scott’s worth, ruling that he could only be counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to certain voting regulations. Every clear-thinking person realized, or should have realized, that was a blatant farce.)

Evolution is taught as a scientific THEORY. Creationism is a mystical Theory.

"How we got here"? is an origination question, not an evolutionary theory discussion. if you can't separate them then you have been "educated" beyond your intelligence level to the point of indoctrination.

@Rhonda,

First, thank you for your responses, although I have to admit I am a bit disappointed that you only chose to address a few and skip over the really tough ones. I'm also disappointed in that you really make less of an effort to answer my questions and more of an effort to restate what you've already said.

(I’ve already stated I usually have a problem determining which Biblical passages are to be taken literally and which passages are meant to be metaphors/parables; however, when a passage is straightforward and obviously leaves no room for confusion, such as “The fool says in his heart there is no God”, I accept the obvious literal translation.

I didn't ask you if you had a problem, I asked you how you determine the true ones from the false ones. So we are agreed that you cannot readily determine which are literal and which are "figurative" making the document you are working from not very accurate indeed, based almost entirely on the subjective reasoning of the reader, and confusing to ascertain true meaning, like reading poetry.

The above statement would further be corroborated by the presence of multiple sects within the same religion, which, without surprise, there are many.

We also talked about your cherry picking of that particular verse, which by the way, you chose to simply ignore.

This isn't a political debate. Being intellectually dishonest will not win you points or the argument. It will only make you dishonest.

Either you are concerned with figuring out what the truth is or you are not. I'm not out to get you, I'm not out to push an atheist agenda.

I am out to find out the truth and share it. So far you have me unconvinced. I would be a little more honest from now on.

One day to the Lord is like a thousand years, etc., so the men who wrote the Bible may not have fully comprehended God’s meaning for “one day.” Also, I made reference to the planets as a modern analogy for explaining how “one day” has a different meaning depending on where you are in the solar system and/or universe. So, even though the folks who wrote the Bible presumably knew nothing about the planets, God knew about the planets and all the time differentials in His creation).

No, no you didn't answer it. Who are the "folks" you are referring to? Who was the author, when was it written, and how do you know that they got that answer directly from god? If you re-read my question I stated I understand that you intend god to transcend time. I asked you how you arrive at that.

Just simply saying "god transcends time and space" is not good enough. Recall the onus you put on science and the "double standard" to which you hold religion and science. It's a very asymmetrical burden.

Let's apply the same standard to both, shall we?

--“Does god violate the first law of thermodynamics? If he does, then why would it not be possible for anything else to? It's interesting that much stock is put into that scientific principle but no others.” (I’ve already answered those questions a few times, so I won’t repeat myself here)

No, no you haven't. Again bypassing hard questions.

Here’s a list of things I didn’t write or even imply:

--“I can see how certain confidence can be taken as arrogance, however, that said, non-believers are not exactly cornering that market, wouldn't you agree?” (Yes, I agree)

But I've always been amazed by the arrogant attitude of non-believers who mock scriptural passages regarding creation.

You both wrote AND implied this. Perhaps you had forgotten.

(I did propose two possible sources for the origin of the universe and everything in it, but I did NOT write or even imply that life on earth started simultaneously with the creation of the universe. Also, I have never heard about a third, fourth, or additional alternatives for the origin of the universe and how we got here. Moreover, science tells us that the only universe we know about began with the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. And I’ve already explained in an earlier comment how Madam Curie proved the universe cannot be eternal.)

The beauty of the internet is that it lets us go back in time and read what you said.

You wrote:

... either the primordial soup always existed and developed into the universe on its own ...

If I misunderstood by what you meant here, please let me know. As far as I know there are no theories presented where the universe started with primordial soup. It seems you confused the beginnings of life with the beginnings of the universe.

And I’ve already explained in an earlier comment how Madam Curie proved the universe cannot be eternal.)

So you explained that Madame Curie was able to prove a negative? Forgive me, I understand her to be a very intelligent woman and have trouble imagining that she would posit such a rediculous notion nor could I find anything, anywhere, that supports what you said about her. Can you provide a reference?

(That’s fine, but none of the scientific laws I’ve cited have been challenged by new credible evidence. For example, what new credible evidence exists to negate the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from other life)?

No, you have only used them improperly but I never said they were challenged. The context of the statement was that they are flexible and able to change as opposed to the equivocation that you used that they are like "rigid rules".

(Many religions do make that claim, but I don’t subscribe to any such notion, so please don’t make reckless assumptions about me. My husband, who is a Christian – I’m a Deist – summed up BOTH of our thoughts about religion when he pointed out this verse in the Bible, “Peter proceeded to speak to those gathered in the house of Cornelius, saying: “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.” Acts 10:34-38)

Perhaps the irony is lost on you but I found this quite amusing. The first half of your statement you scold me for assuming that you find Christianity to be true, then conclude with a bible verse you feel substantiates your faith.

So you subscribe to Abrahamic religion, are you ok with that description?

(Nobody has to prove anything. Besides, both Darwinian evolution AND creation cannot be proved. We just have to look at the scientific facts and make our best judgment as to which alternative makes more sense.

There is no such thing as "Darwinian Evolution". In fact, it may be more accurate to call it Wallacean Evolution.

I strongly disagree with you here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Now, you may not agree with the evidence provided by Mr Darwin and the other scientists that followed him in the past 150 years, but you have absolutely 0 (zero) evidence of creation other than a really old book and some men in robes pointing enthusiastically at the book.

Until you provide evidence of the claim, you cannot claim it as a "competing theory". It must be held to the same standard. No special rules or pleading.

(I have a problem with your use of the word “invent.” I don’t believe Newton “invented” new math; rather he discovered new math, which already existed. It’s like claiming that Columbus “invented” the new world (America); instead, Columbus discovered the new world (America), which already existed.

Math is a language. One invents language. Besides, Google "Newton invents calculus" and count the several hundred thousand hits that support my assertion.

(I never claimed I could PROVE that God exists, and YOU may be at peg one here, but I’m not. For the umpteenth time, here’s what I actually wrote and claimed in one of my earliest comments: While the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically in a laboratory, there are enough clues to conclude that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

Apparently there are not enough clues. Someone apparently forgot to tell the Hindus and Taoists, Shintoists, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jaines, Zoroastrians, et al.

For example, the existence of God is clearly indicated by an honest examination of the Argument from Design,

An "honest" examination (meaning impartial) shows that the argument from design, especially from the viewpoint of a pattern seeking human is undeniably flawed. One just has to look at human teeth alone to determine that if there was a designer they would be a moron.

two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect,

The laws of thermodynamics are stated to only work in a closed environment. The universe is not a closed environment. Try again.

the Law of Biogenesis,

Based on observation. Again, like I said, Science laws are not absolutes and subject to change with new evidence. The theory of Aiogenesisis is being worked on along with much research into it. That it hasn't been proven "right now" does not mean that it will not. We understand that biological material is made up ultimately of the same chemical composition as non living things. There is no reason to believe that atomic elements that make up biological material are unique to the universe.

clues from the Fossil Record,

How do clues in the fossil record point to "to conclude that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt."? You have me intrigued.

the Existence of Conscience,

Above is a study concluded on Chimps that they also have the existence of a "conscience". We are not alone and oddly enough what evolution suggests is our closest primate cousin also possess the same ability as us.

and the Wisdom of the Ages.

Sorry, this made me chuckle.

Deuteronomy 17:12

Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Is the wisdom you are referring to? I mean, I agree, it's wise to simply kill anyone that does not agree with you especially if your power base is derived by worship of something imaginary.

These arguments collectively provide enough of a starting point to rightly conclude that a Higher Being of some kind exists.

If only truth could be derived simply by making a logical argument for it. (Which I don't think you were able to pull off in all honesty). At least you don't have me convinced and presented several flawed and some non-sequitor concepts to support your assertion.

(I’m a Deist, and I never claimed that believers believe in different Gods; instead, I’ve claimed that believers worship the same God differently.)

Um, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same god. The god of Abraham (They just bicker over the prophets and the rules ) and yes, you have claimed to believe in this god. You originally stated you were a creationist. Where outside of the Abrahamic bible, torah, or Quran is creation stated as you describe it?

--“I think that's rather "arrogant" to suggest that no atheist ever has done good and all their deeds are vile.” (I never made that claim; you did)

(I never wrote or even implied that you need any book to do good. So, your statement means nothing to me. How do you come up with these imaginations?)

No, you only posted half of a single verse in a half hearted attempt to suggest that anyone that doesn't believe in god is a fool. I simply filled in the rest of the verse giving it the context that it was meant in.

I explained at length how I came up with that. If we are going to have a discussion, and if you choose not to answer some of my questions, ok, at least have the common courtesy to read them.

I CANNOT separate “origination” from “evolution” because the latter could not occur without the former.

But I admitted earlier that I could not absolutely, 100% rule out a creator. Therefore, I am only arguing evolution, not creation or origination. Thus, they are separate.

the burden of proof for supporting Darwinian evolution is really on YOU

You are correct. I apologize.

Finally, when BOTH websites you sent me to wreak with bias to the degree that one of them even BOASTS that it’s in business specifically to deny the airing of creationism (an alternate point of view), I’m immediately “turned off” (as any clear-thinking person should be).

Because creationism has absolutely no proof, no evidence, cannot make any predictions and is therefore useless. As a matter of fact, creationists never try to prove creationism, they merely try to take down evolution. So we go back to your original question. Since I don't know for certain where it all started, prove to me that it was a creator.

So then I would be happy to end our debate on the key of " WE dont know "

On the point of abiogenesis and where it all started, I am more than happy.

@Rhonda,

These get special attention:

First let's ensure we are both using the same meaning for the term chaos. Chaos can mean the beginning of the universe or a gaping void, or disorder.

(Mathematical measurements/scientific assessments of the universe show it to be very orderly. Otherwise, scientific predictions ((for example, in astronomy)) and meaningful studies would be impossible if the universe were utterly chaotic.

If I throw a box of match sticks on the ground, do I have order or chaos? If I look at the groups of matches and begin to find patterns in the way they are laying and map them out, do I have order or chaos?

All you really prove with this statement is that humans have an uncanny ability to make order out of chaos.

We now have an optical clock that achieves amazing accuracy by measuring time with light. Time is now measured in femtoseconds, or a million-billionth of a second, so an optical clock only slips one second every 30 billion years! How could such incomprehensible precision in the universe - the basis for an optical clock - be associated with chaos?)

Humans invented the concept of time and the means to measure it. It has nothing to do with the universe or the "order" behind it.

Can you point to anything that is not human made, or not human invented that applies to this order?

Previously I stated several things, black holes, comets, asteroids, meteors, solar flares, et al that suggests there is nothing orderly about it. None of those things are a man made measurement or concept but rather a natural observation of disorder that contradicts your assertion.

(At least you’re honest. I’m claiming that secular evolutionists want us to believe that everything ultimately resulted from nothing and for no apparent reason. In essence, they are claiming that the universe created itself and for no apparent reason. Thus, they are essentially theorizing that NOTHING working on behalf of NOTHING for NOTHING through NOTHING created EVERYTHING. How convincing is that?)

I am honest, it's both a virtue and a curse.

It's interesting the cognitive dissonance here at work. You claim that nothing can come from nothing and that scientists and theoretical physicists are not allowed to make such an assumption but believe that god can come from nothing and that he can make something from nothing. You know, there are some that would call that a "double standard".

I do not follow where evolution suggests that everything came from nothing. Evolution is the idea that subtle change over time can lead to big difference between two species of living things.

I think you are confusing evolution with theoretical physics which does make the claim of abiogenesis.

I'm not convinced that something came from nothing, as I'm not sure really what "nothing" means or how it would apply to the universe.

Do you mean, no particles? No Dark Matter? I mean, I look at a black hole and nothing appears to be there, just a void but it certainly makes one assume something is there to make that void.

(Following the advice of Occam’s razor, when there are a variety of possible explanations, go with the one that requires the fewest assumptions.

Agreed. But you are not following Occams razor.

This means you don’t have to invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain the properties of our universe when there is a much simpler, more obvious explanation readily at hand.

Do you mean like a mystical omnipresent, omnipotent, being that transcends time and space, created something from nothing, was discovered *only* by primitive men during the bronze age, only able to interact with humans during that time through purely natural means, inexplicably gave us the desire for knowledge but forbade us to use it, forced his own beloved son to die an excruciatingly slow death to absolve the rest of us of a crime that he originally and indiscriminately declared we are all in violation of, only able to communicate with us by a several thousand year old book compiled by a political committee in an effort to consolidate an empire although we "mere" humans can communicate with each other on opposite sides of the planet, in real time, but apparently god is unable to pull this off.

Is that the simple answer you are suggesting I accept?

So, let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time: in my opinion, the best explanation for why the universe is so orderly and intelligible and favorable for life is that an intelligent being made it that way.)

You can repeat yourself as many times as you wish. It still doesn't make you right.

(Try to calm down. During my experiences in the classroom, I’ve always encouraged and even congratulated any student who challenged some point I taught about science or any other subject. In fact, I’ve invited students to explain their objections to the whole class in order to determine if the objection merited further discussion. Also, I don’t own a Bible (my husband does) and I don’t rely on that book for my overall belief system, so please stop making baseless assumptions about me and a rigid Bible connection.)

I'm perfectly calm. Besides, you didn't answer the question but rather gave a cagey answer around it.

Why are you picking on evolution specifically? There are much more controversial and less supported theories than that of evolution. Evolution is no longer debated in scientific (real ones) circles as it's been exhausted over the past 150 years.

You don't own a bible? Why not? I do. I own a couple actually and read them cover to cover several times. It's the fastest way to become an atheist really.

Again, you do not prescribe to the chakras (at least do not attest to them), Ying and Yang, Mitra, or any other religion besides that of the Abrahamic faith the bible, torah, or quran and since you have been quoting it, would it not be reasonable to assume you prescribe to it?

(My experience was teaching in a private school where the United States establishment clause is irrelevant. I still maintain that creationism is a competing theory

I'm glad you have such low regard for the US Constitution. I on the other hand spent 14 years in the military and in 2 conflicts to protect such a thing.

Creationism cannot be a competing "theory". In order to be classified as a theory at all it has to be "falsifiable" as a "teacher" you should know that. By your own admission, creation cannot be proven false ergo cannot be a theory.

There is also no basis for it outside of a religious realm.

because of the reams of scientific clues, philosophical thought, logical deductions, and common sense conclusions I’ve already presented, which are NOT associated with religion per se. For example, I mentioned that Charles B. Thaxton ((who holds a PhD in Chemistry and is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University)) wrote that “…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.”)

Charles B. Thaxton is an intelligent design author and Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. (So he's a creationist) which is nothing but religion.
From his website:

Charles Thaxton received his Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Iowa State University. He completed two post-doctoral programs, one in history of science at Harvard University and the second in the molecular biology laboratories of Brandeis University.

He has specialized in the origin of life and in science's relationship with Christianity through history

You should really reflect on why you need to be so dishonest. It's really unbecoming and quite scary that someone with such low ethical standards would be charged with teaching children. Yes, that is a personal attack on your character. You have already lied to me twice in one discussion.

(Why shouldn’t it happen in a school? Isn’t that a place for learning? Also, I never admitted that creationism has no supporting scientific data; I just mentioned some in the paragraph above, so please stop making misleading assumptions about what I wrote.

You are not talking about learning, you are talking about indoctrination with a specific religious belief.

A guy with a PhD making a statement is not "supporting scientific data" no matter how much you want it to be.

So, if creationism is mystical or magic, so is Darwinian evolution. In fact, I’d say that Darwinian evolution is science fiction

Many MANY people over the past 150 years has been trying to falsify Darwin's theory and failing miserably when their claims are scrutinized.

Where is your nobel prize? Where are the supporting experiments and peer reviewed conclusions? As a teacher of science you should know how these things work.

(I’ve already agreed with that concept; do you read my comments with comprehension? I already stated that the pros and cons of BOTH evolution AND creationism should be taught in ANY ARENA/CLASSROOM ((religious or secular)) to generate discussions and let the students decide for themselves which alternative makes more sense. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself? Sheeeeeeeeeesh)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I'm not talking about the competing ideas of evolution and creation, I am talking that religious schools should be taught the competing idea that there is no god and let the students decide who's making the most sense.

(I never proposed teaching creationism as fact; instead, I proposed teaching it as an alternate THEORY for how we got here. Besides, Darwinian evolution is NOT a fact; it’s a THEORY, too, with lots of holes in it, yet it's taught as a fact without alternatives. How scientific is that? When alternative THEORIES, such as creationism, are banned from a classroom, that indicates fear to me...fear that inquiring minds might latch on to a competing idea which is not politically correct.)

Evolution is a fact therefore to compete, you would have to believe that creationism is a fact. Again, being a science teacher, I should not have to lecture you on the difference between a science theory and an unsubstantiated "hunch".

Creationism is religion- period. It's not falsifiable, cannot be proven or even shown to exist outside of religious texts, and has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. That you claim both are on equal ground is absurd to say the least.

Again, lets put the alternative in classrooms that god does not exist, the entire history of man making up gods etc in the classroom. Then I'm ok with it.

(So what? The U.S. Supreme Court, which allegedly consists of the brightest legal minds in the country, once ruled that Dred Scott was not fully human. The Court even assigned a precise fraction to Dred Scott’s worth, ruling that he could only be counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to certain voting regulations. Every clear-thinking person realized, or should have realized, that was a blatant farce.)

lol, so you have to go back to an unrelated case, in 1857 mind you, is your counter argument to a well laid out, well thought out decision by a Christian US judge in 2004?

This is called a "red herring" fallacy. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case in Kitzmiller v Dover School board.

Do you have a rebuttal specific to the case?

losghost,

Welcome to the discussion. Your eloquence and knowledge are, indeed, very welcome. I was losing my mind going in circles with Rhonda, maybe you'll do better. I know I'll certainly enjoy the show...

Losghost:

You’re all over the map with meandering prose. And much of it is meaningless to me.

For example, YOU ASKED: “Who are the ‘folks’ you are referring to? Who was the author, when was it written, and how do you know that they got that answer directly from god? If you re-read my question I stated I understand that you intend god to transcend time. I asked you how you arrive at that.”

MY RESPONSE: That gaggle of questions mostly consists of minutia/trivia not worth my attention. First, I merely pointed out that “one day” to God may mean something completely different than “one day” to WHOEVER wrote that passage in the Bible. So, I don’t care who wrote that passage in the Bible and I’m not going to launch an investigation to find out. Second, I already answered your question about God transcending time in an earlier comment addressed to someone else (but I’m not going to waste my time revisiting every comment I made in order to direct you to the exact location; you’ll have to do that for yourself).

MY RESPONSES TO SEVERAL OF YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS: I’m not a zealous devotee of the Bible. Actually, I don’t have much interest in it, other than agreeing with a few nuggets of wisdom pulled from that book and shown to me on occasion. But your implication that this sentence -“the fool says in his heart there is no God”- is somehow negated by the next two lines of verse (they are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good) doesn’t make sense. In other words, I don’t see how the last two lines negate the introductory assertion. You do, but I don’t. Also, there are no thought control police requiring me to believe every line in a Biblical passage. So, I’m free to believe each line I’m comfortable with and I’m free to disbelieve each line I’m uncomfortable with. Sometimes, I hear about passages that are nicely worded, succinct summations of the beliefs I already hold, and the proclamation that “the fool says in his heart there is no God” is spot on for me. You’ll probably conjure up some tortured rationalization to justify your point of view, but I really don’t care. I see truth in that first line. Whatever “fools” do in the subsequent lines of verse is none of my concern.

As an analogy, here’s an entire verse from an Alan Moore (English writer) quip:

Roses are red;

Violets are blue;

Everything’s possible;

Nothing is true.

I can easily believe the first two lines from personal experience, but that doesn’t mean the next two lines are just as believable because they're not.

Also, you should have noticed that when I listed the categories containing the clues for my belief in God (none were even Bible-based), I wrote in bold letters that those clues collectively provided enough of a starting point to rightly conclude that a higher being of some kind exists. That’s my opinion. Plus, I never described each of those clues in detail because I realize that would require too much space and would wander from the topic du jour, which was evolution. So, your isolated criticism of each category I listed (Argument from Design, two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, etc.) rings hollow because I haven’t even explained ALL those particular clues in detail for the reasons I just stated.

Also, despite your criticism of the quote I posted by Dr. Charles Thaxton, I still maintain that that quote is compelling. He used a simple scientific observation about DNA’s messaging sequence, then used logic, common sense, and reason to deduce that DNA must have come from an intelligent source. And he did that without mentioning religion at all. Instead, he used an analogy about the Search for Extraterrestrial Life to make his point understandable, which I think he did admirably. Also, why would anyone with an inquiring mind automatically dismiss a perfectly reasonable point by Dr. Thaxton just because he belongs to a particular school of thought (creationism)? For your information, Anthony Flew (a former world-class atheist philosopher) presumably agrees with Dr. Thaxton’s point of view because Anthony Flew became a believer in God based primarily on DNA phenomena, according to his own words. I also wrote about that in detail in one of my earlier comments, which I won’t repeat. So, in my past comments I presented a thought-provoking statement by Dr. Thaxton, which was reinforced (in a separate comment) by a former atheist and bolstered by additional scientific data in yet another comment. So, I think I’ve already covered that issue thoroughly and from several perspectives.

While on the subject of repetition, I’m getting tired revisiting issues I’ve already discussed and you perhaps didn’t understand or never even read. The Madam Curie issue comes immediately to mind. I already discussed how she proved the universe isn’t eternal, so I can’t help it if you can’t find that comment or don’t believe it (without even reading it). That’s also none of my concern.

Here’s two examples of why I’m tired of repeating myself:

Example #1

YOU ASKED --“Does god violate the first law of thermodynamics? If he does, then why would it not be possible for anything else to? It's interesting that much stock is put into that scientific principle but no others.”

THEN I RESPONDED: I’ve already answered those questions a few times, so I won’t repeat myself here.

THEN YOU RESPONDED: “No, no you haven't. Again bypassing hard questions.”

SO, LET ME RESPOND AGAIN (word for word) FROM SEVERAL OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS (but I’m not going to continue doing this):

The laws of thermodynamics only apply to the physical world (like all the laws of physics do). But I maintain that God resides in the spiritual word, where the laws of physics do not apply.

For our purposes in this discussion, the First Law of Thermodynamics simply says that “nothing comes from nothing” in the material world. So, all who state that the universe came into existence by itself from nothing violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin, i.e. a specific moment when it was created by an all-powerful spirit because whatever created the universe could not have been material. Or, as Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused. Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin. Ironically, a non-material, eternal first cause is the only feasible answer to this dilemma and it perfectly fits the dictionary definition of God.

Presumably, God can achieve phenomenal accomplishments because He has no known constraints. Since God made the universe, He also made the laws of physics, so it’s logical to assume that He can alter/suspend those laws on occasion if/when He chooses. That probably explains how God created the primordial soup (the material ingredients of the universe) from nothing (thus, successfully defying the First Law of Thermodynamics), then propelled matter into its present arrangement via “The Big Bang.” That may also explain how Jesus Christ was said by His followers (who believed He was the Son of God) to have performed miracles on earth, such as walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, changing water into wine, etc. Such miracles would have been child’s play for a being who was believed by many to have created the universe and everything in it.

ANOTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION ASKED: “...why would it not be possible for anything else to?”

MY RESPONSE: (I’m guessing – because your sentence structure is awkward – that you’re asking why it’s not possible for some kind of non-thinking, inanimate matter to have the same powers as the Supreme Creator I’m referring to).

If I understand your question correctly (and that’s a leap), any kind of physical matter (animate or inanimate) could not be an uncaused first cause because the First Law of Thermodynamics already states that in the material world, nothing comes from nothing. And it’s more logical, if one has an iota of common sense, that whatever brought the material world into existence, must necessarily exist OUTSIDE the material world and possess an incredibly amount of intelligence (a mind) because of all of the order, precision, complexity, and design we see all around us. Mindless, inanimate matter could not accomplish such phenomena and for no apparent reason, according to my understanding of probability.

Example #2

YOU WROTE: “You (meaning me) claim that nothing can come from nothing and that scientists and theoretical physicists are not allowed to make such an assumption but believe that god can come from nothing and that he can make something from nothing. You know, there are some that would call that a ‘double standard’".

MY RESPONSE: I’ve already addressed your concern in Example #1 above and in several previous comments on this thread as well. Hence, the defining difference between what God is and what God can do compared to what physicists are and what physicists can do boils down to this: God resides in the spiritual world where the laws of physics do not apply, so He has no known constraints; in contrast, physicists reside in the material world where the laws of physics do apply... with a multitude of constraints. Thus, physicists are governed by the laws of the physical world while God is not. And since God made the laws of physics, which rule the universe, He can alter/suspend those laws whenever He chooses. The concept is somewhat similar to what our legislators do. They can create laws which exempt themselves or alter/suspend those laws whenever they wish. So, there’s no double-standard in play regarding the laws of physics and the abilities of God. Also, I already explained in Example #1 above and in prior comments my thought process for why I believe God always existed.

By now, I hope you understand why I ignore several of your questions. It’s mainly because I’ve already answered them or they obsess with minutia or they are irrelevant to my posted views or the questions themselves are not clear enough even after re-reading them several times.

MORE RESPONSES TO OTHER QUESTIONS:

With regard to Newton’s alleged “invention” of new math, I’m arguing that the math already existed for anyone to discover. Newton merely “invented” a way to express what he newly discovered.

My point about the U.S. Supreme Court was to demonstrate that even the highest court in the land can make bone-headed decisions. So, your point that a lower court ruled creationism isn’t science doesn’t make that decision sacrosanct or unquestionable for all time. Court decisions at all levels (such as the Dred Scott decision) are often found to be wrong after further review or in hindsight. A recent case in point is the striking down of Washington, D.C.’s draconian gun control laws, which were in effect for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court found those lower, court-approved gun control measures to be wrong. That’s my point.

Many of your other questions need to be rephrased and/or simplified because several of them are just plain nebulous. Others have already been addressed by me, but you just won’t accept my answers, which is fine because I don’t accept many of your answers either. For example, I’m betting that most people (including scientists) would agree that the universe exhibits an incredible amount of precision, design, order, and complexity because it’s obvious even right here on earth, while you passionately disagree. So, why should I continue to argue with you about that issue when I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine. Besides, changing someone’s view on this thread is not my mission or goal. As I’ve stated previously, I post comments on this thread to promote discussion about alternatives to Darwinian evolution, period.

YOU ALSO WROTE: “...you (meaning me) are not following Occams razor...Do you mean like a mystical omnipresent, omnipotent, being that transcends time and space, created something from nothing, was discovered *only* by primitive men during the bronze age, only able to interact with humans during that time through purely natural means, inexplicably gave us the desire for knowledge but forbade us to use it, forced his own beloved son to die an excruciatingly slow death to absolve the rest of us of a crime that he originally and indiscriminately declared we are all in violation of, only able to communicate with us by a several thousand year old book compiled by a political committee in an effort to consolidate an empire although we ‘mere’ humans can communicate with each other on opposite sides of the planet, in real time, but apparently god is unable to pull this off. Is that the simple answer you are suggesting I accept?”

MY RESPONSE: There you go again, attributing many words/thoughts to me that I never wrote or even implied. Nearly all of your verbiage above deals with Christian beliefs. I’m a Deist, so directing that question to me is almost entirely irrelevant/pointless. You need to rein in your tendency to make spurious assumptions and to spew hyperbole. But I’ll attempt to answer the portion of your question which has a scintilla of relevance to me, but I’ll have to repeat myself because I’ve already answered the relevant snippet.

According to Occam’s razor, I’m more prone to accept that a Supreme Being created the universe and everything in it rather than to accept the tortured explanations for how matter, energy, space, time, and all the sophisticated laws of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. somehow just popped out of thin air by themselves during our distant past, and for no apparent reason.

Moreover, my grasp of scientific theories (such as evolution) often requires more than just looking at hard facts, which AREN’T ALWAYS hard facts. By that I mean I have to tap every facet of my intellect to understand a scientific theory because hard facts alone – even valid ones - can only take me so far. When I hit a plateau where science has run out of answers, then I can only move forward by relying on a combination of logic, common sense, and the testimonials/hunches of history’s famed experts.

For example, science tells me that the material universe did not create itself and cannot be eternal (first two Laws of Thermodynamics). But science doesn’t satisfy my curiosity because I see the material universe all around me, so it had to come from somewhere.

Then science tells me that life only comes from other life (Law of Biogenesis). But logic dictates that life had to START somewhere, somehow. And my common sense tells me that life can’t arise naturally from inanimate material, such as rocks, dirt, or pond slime.

Science also tells me that the DNA in a single human cell contains enough instructional information to fill several volumes of an encyclopedia, and common sense tells me that such sophisticated information could not have emerged from inanimate material through natural processes for no apparent reason. But I still know that our cells contain a wealth of information, which basic logic tells me had to come from some intelligent source.

Then I read about the hunches/intuitive leanings of a host of history’s greatest minds who strongly suspect that a spiritual, eternal, Supreme Creator is responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it. For example, famed scientist Lord Calvin said, “Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us…The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words…The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism…Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion."

Therefore, when I gather all the information gleaned from science, logic, common sense, and the testimonials of history’s scientific icons, I simply have to go where the preponderance of evidence takes me, i.e. to the doorstep (so to speak) of a Supreme Creator. The existence of a Supreme Creator is the logical answer for most of the questions science cannot answer.

For example, the intelligent design we see in nature exists because it had an intelligent designer (God). The first life on earth did come from other life (from an eternal being called God). The material universe was brought into existence by a spiritual Supreme Creator because whatever brought the universe into existence necessarily must exist OUTSIDE of matter, time, energy, and space.

So, I’ve discovered lots of clues for God's existence, which I’ve briefly mentioned in prior comments. Then, like a detective, I try to pull all those individual clues together for collective analysis (like an emerging picture in a jigsaw puzzle with a few missing pieces). All those clues collectively provide enough of the big picture pointing to the existence of God that I no longer need every single piece of the puzzle to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. From that point on, my "faith" or intuitive "hunch" tells me I'm on the right track...i.e., God really exists! Bingo!

Finally, I noticed that you twice mentioned your military service, as if that’s somehow relevant to our discussion. Gee, I was a girl scout for almost seven years, but I don’t feel the need to mention that during a discussion about evolution. In addition, I have several friends who are on active duty and others who are retired from military service. None of them think they are more special than those who didn’t join the military? So, what’s your point? I hope it has nothing to do with insecurity issues.

Occam's razor is the refuge of the mentally challenged, and the white-washers.

Paul:

YOU WROTE: "Occam's razor is the refuge of the mentally challenged, and the white-washers."

MY RESPONSE: Wow! That statement really advances the discussion by adding an element of wisdom (I'm being sarcastic here).

I can see that you have nothing of substance to bring to the table, so out of desperation you feel compelled to stoop to name-calling and ridicule, which is the true refuge of those who have already lost the debate.

According to Occam’s razor, I’m more prone to accept that a Supreme Being created the universe and everything in it rather than to accept the tortured explanations for how matter, energy, space, time, and all the sophisticated laws of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. somehow just popped out of thin air by themselves during our distant past, and for no apparent reason.

I would have to disagree. First, a Supreme Being that could create an entire Universe must then, by definition, be more complex than its creation. From where did this Being come?

Second, the laws all seem sophisticated because they work. If they didn't work, we wouldn't be here, simple as that.

Third, if a Supreme Being can either be eternal or come from nowhere, then why not the Universe?

I told you their "illogic". God is "spiritual". That, like Occam's razor, explains everything for the simple minded.

@Rhonda

You’re all over the map with meandering prose. And much of it is meaningless to me.

Which translates to: I don't really have any good arguments from my end so I will just thumb my nose at you.

Considering I've been answering your replies point by point, that would mean you are the driver here and any meandering is a result of your driving.

MY RESPONSE: That gaggle of questions mostly consists of minutia/trivia not worth my attention. First, I merely pointed out that “one day” to God may mean something completely different than “one day” to WHOEVER wrote that passage in the Bible. So, I don’t care who wrote that passage in the Bible and I’m not going to launch an investigation to find out. Second, I already answered your question about God transcending time in an earlier comment addressed to someone else (but I’m not going to waste my time revisiting every comment I made in order to direct you to the exact location; you’ll have to do that for yourself).

Now we're adding "ad hominem" which can be construed as the last resort of a limited mind. Are you sure you want to stay on that path?

Asking you to prove the root of your assertion is hardly "minutia".

You claimed that god transcends time. First, my argument is that you haven't proven god, so you cannot move on to prove that he transcends time.

Second, the only source for such knowledge of god and his "transcendence" comes from bible verse. I asked you to support the veracity of that verse, not only did you fail, but outright refuse.

MY RESPONSES TO SEVERAL OF YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS: I’m not a zealous devotee of the Bible.

Yet you keep quoting it, quoting people devoted to furthering it, and forwarding an idea that only comes from it. Yeah, but other than that, you aren't really into it. I get it.

MY RESPONSES TO SEVERAL OF YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS: I’m not a zealous devotee of the Bible. Actually, I don’t have much interest in it, other than agreeing with a few nuggets of wisdom pulled from that book and shown to me on occasion. But your implication that this sentence -“the fool says in his heart there is no God”- is somehow negated by the next two lines of verse (they are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good) doesn’t make sense.

It doesn't make sense "to you". Your personal incredulity doesn't factor into it. This is the same bible that says god exists. The same you use to claim that he is transcendent.

When someone else tells you the whole thing (entire bible) doesn't "make sense" you should really be a little more understanding, right?

In other words, I don’t see how the last two lines negate the introductory assertion. You do, but I don’t. Also, there are no thought control police requiring me to believe every line in a Biblical passage. So, I’m free to believe each line I’m comfortable with and I’m free to disbelieve each line I’m uncomfortable with. Sometimes, I hear about passages that are nicely worded, succinct summations of the beliefs I already hold, and the proclamation that “the fool says in his heart there is no God” is spot on for me. You’ll probably conjure up some tortured rationalization to justify your point of view, but I really don’t care. I see truth in that first line. Whatever “fools” do in the subsequent lines of verse is none of my concern.

First off, using half a verse out of context is a no no. Theists love to scold atheists for quoting entire verse, imagine if I only used half of one.

So that we are clear, the methodology you use to determine what's true and real in the bible is that it makes you feel warm and fuzzy?

For me, fools accept without question. Fools follow what's warm and fuzzy instead of what's the right thing to do even if it's difficult to accept or understand or doesn't feel good. Anyway, enough of this red herring.

I can easily believe the first two lines from personal experience, but that doesn’t mean the next two lines are just as believable because they're not.

Also, you should have noticed that when I listed the categories containing the clues for my belief in God (none were even Bible-based), I wrote in bold letters that those clues collectively provided enough of a starting point to rightly conclude that a higher being of some kind exists. That’s my opinion. Plus, I never described each of those clues in detail because I realize that would require too much space and would wander from the topic du jour, which was evolution. So, your isolated criticism of each category I listed (Argument from Design, two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, etc.) rings hollow because I haven’t even explained ALL those particular clues in detail for the reasons I just stated.

My responses to your "clues" were not pointed to the bible either, but rather the fallacious logic you used to come to the conclusion that they as a whole somehow supported your assertion.

I explained, point by point how each one of them was wrong. That does not make the sum total right but rather makes it wrong and reinforces my point.

No matter how much science you try to undermine or minimize, none of that proves the existence of a god, gods, magic, or any other mystical plane of existence.

Also, despite your criticism of the quote I posted by Dr. Charles Thaxton, I still maintain that that quote is compelling. He used a simple scientific observation about DNA’s messaging sequence, then used logic, common sense, and reason to deduce that DNA must have come from an intelligent source. And he did that without mentioning religion at all. Instead, he used an analogy about the Search for Extraterrestrial Life to make his point understandable, which I think he did admirably. Also, why would anyone with an inquiring mind automatically dismiss a perfectly reasonable point by Dr. Thaxton just because he belongs to a particular school of thought (creationism)? For your information, Anthony Flew (a former world-class atheist philosopher) presumably agrees with Dr. Thaxton’s point of view because Anthony Flew became a believer in God based primarily on DNA phenomena, according to his own words. I also wrote about that in detail in one of my earlier comments, which I won’t repeat. So, in my past comments I presented a thought-provoking statement by Dr. Thaxton, which was reinforced (in a separate comment) by a former atheist and bolstered by additional scientific data in yet another comment. So, I think I’ve already covered that issue thoroughly and from several perspectives.

You provided the quote from "Dr" Thaxton because you felt that a fallacious argument from authority would help your case. it's not thought provoking, it's a thought terminating cliche.

First off, this individual works for a consortium of creationists who are working to directly undermine science, the scientific method, the scientific community at large and the way we derive reality in an effort to advance a religious viewpoint and in particular, Fundamentalist Christianity. It's important to put some background to the person you claim as an authority. Who agrees with him is irrelevant and that you claim it's a (former) atheist is laughable. The pope was a former atheist at some point in his life if you really think about it.

Second, his comment on DNA being "information" is both fallacious equivocation and a misnomer.
Like my match example. *We* being humans, are putting the term "information" in there because *we* see a pattern. We are pattern seeking creatures after all and we have a penchant for finding patterns even where there are none. We even have a term for it: Apophenia.

DNA is a molecule. It's comprised of 5 atoms: Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, and Phosphorus configured into 4 "macro molecules" which form a much larger molecule.

There is absolutely nothing unique about the atomic contents of DNA. These atomic elements are abundant on earth, and apparently throughout the entire known universe. These are found in both inert and biological materials which both *shockingly* share the same methods of reacting with each other to change.

Chemical reactions when certain molecules interact is how nature works. Not just us, or DNA, or any other interaction of things. DNA replicating is just another set of molecules reacting to other molecules.

No magic or mysterious causes need to be invoked here, no source code, no intelligent agency, and you don't need a PhD in history to understand it.

While on the subject of repetition, I’m getting tired revisiting issues I’ve already discussed and you perhaps didn’t understand or never even read. The Madam Curie issue comes immediately to mind. I already discussed how she proved the universe isn’t eternal, so I can’t help it if you can’t find that comment or don’t believe it (without even reading it). That’s also none of my concern.

If you actually read what I typed, I told you I was unable to find on my own your assertion of Madame Curie and asked you provide a reference. You'll forgive me, but I think you are simply making it up.

No one of any known expertize in the area thinks that the universe is a finite thing and remain unconvinced of your assertion that it is. Meanwhile, you think you have license to simply blurt out whatever crazy assertion you feel like saying without having to substantiate it.

The laws of thermodynamics only apply to the physical world (like all the laws of physics do). But I maintain that God resides in the spiritual word, where the laws of physics do not apply.

So this "spiritual world" that apparently no one can know about but somehow do know about because primitive men during the bronze age were somehow privy to it exists. Right?

And, the only proof you have to present that substantiates your claim of this "spiritual world" is a book that you do not believe in total, pick out what makes you feel good and ignore the rest, and that you have the ability to recognize your own existence? Did I get that right?

Wow, what a fantastically complicated world you must live in. There is so much you have to reconcile.

For our purposes in this discussion, the First Law of Thermodynamics simply says that “nothing comes from nothing” in the material world. So, all who state that the universe came into existence by itself from nothing violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin, i.e. a specific moment when it was created by an all-powerful spirit because whatever created the universe could not have been material.

Again, now repeating myself, a SCIENCE LAW IS AN OBSERVATION, NOT A RULE. You do not get apply it in this manner. This spiritual plane you claim also has not been observed and you cannot claim it if you plan to say that one cannot claim abiogenesis. At least there is an attempt to falsify abiogensis. What you are doing here is called "special pleading" and is a logical fallacy.

Or, as Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused. Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin. Ironically, a non-material, eternal first cause is the only feasible answer to this dilemma and it perfectly fits the dictionary definition of God.

Aristotle had no concept of zero or infinity. The flaw in his logic is that he assumes a start. If things must have a start, then where and when did god start? If he does not need one, then neither does anything else. Get it? No special pleading.

By now, I hope you understand why I ignore several of your questions.

Absolutely, because you either cannot answer them or answering them would put you in a very poor position in the debate.

With regard to Newton’s alleged “invention” of new math, I’m arguing that the math already existed for anyone to discover. Newton merely “invented” a way to express what he newly discovered.

Ok, but there's about 100,000+ websites that disagree with you. Just saying.

My point about the U.S. Supreme Court was to demonstrate that even the highest court in the land can make bone-headed decisions. So, your point that a lower court ruled creationism isn’t science doesn’t make that decision sacrosanct or unquestionable for all time. Court decisions at all levels (such as the Dred Scott decision) are often found to be wrong after further review or in hindsight. A recent case in point is the striking down of Washington, D.C.’s draconian gun control laws, which were in effect for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court found those lower, court-approved gun control measures to be wrong. That’s my point.

And my point is that you have failed to show that this was a boneheaded decision. Anyone reading the case or knowing about what the arguments were clearly shows that there was overwhelming empirical evidence shown against intelligent design being anywhere near a valid scientific theory and simply a religious assertion.

It also showed the lengths of dishonesty that theists will go through to prove their point regardless if they can prove it or not. This discussion we are having is proof of that.

Many of your other questions need to be rephrased and/or simplified because several of them are just plain nebulous. Others have already been addressed by me, but you just won’t accept my answers, which is fine because I don’t accept many of your answers either.

You just give statements or assertions with nothing to support them. I've cited examples, shown where you have "multiple times" committed fallacious logical errors in your reasoning, and am fully prepared to support any statement you wish to enlarge and expound. Unlike you, I will not dismiss what you have to say. I have and will continue to address it.

For example, I’m betting that most people (including scientists) would agree that the universe exhibits an incredible amount of precision, design, order, and complexity because it’s obvious even right here on earth, while you passionately disagree. So, why should I continue to argue with you about that issue when I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine. Besides, changing someone’s view on this thread is not my mission or goal.

Precision is a measurement. A measurement is a pattern. Do I need to go further into this? ... again?

As I’ve stated previously, I post comments on this thread to promote discussion about alternatives to Darwinian evolution, period.

Unless you haven't been reading my comments, that's exactly what we are discussing. Your assertion on the alternative of evolution.

You don't get a free pass to invoke god and religion as an accepted absolute. You start at the same place Darwin does. At the beginning, proving the basis for his assertions.

So far you have failed epically.

MY RESPONSE: There you go again, attributing many words/thoughts to me that I never wrote or even implied. Nearly all of your verbiage above deals with Christian beliefs. I’m a Deist, so directing that question to me is almost entirely irrelevant/pointless. You need to rein in your tendency to make spurious assumptions and to spew hyperbole. But I’ll attempt to answer the portion of your question which has a scintilla of relevance to me, but I’ll have to repeat myself because I’ve already answered the relevant snippet.

Let's be perfectly clear and honest here. This is where you get your idea of creation: If not, what other religion and doctrine did you arrive at the idea of first, a single god, second of him being the agent of creation, and last, the method of that creation?

You are telling me that I'm wrong and then refusing to show where claiming that you've already stated it. I'm not buying this tactic and neither is anyone else reading this.

Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴ God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

⁶ And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” ⁷ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. ⁸ God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

⁹ And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. ¹⁰ God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

¹¹ Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. ¹² The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

¹⁴ And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. ¹⁶ God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ¹⁷ God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, ¹⁸ to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. ¹⁹ And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

²⁰ And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” ²¹ So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ²² God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” ²³ And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

²⁴ And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. ²⁵ God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Is this not where you get the idea? When I asked you to support where you got the idea of transcendence, you gave me the bible. Why would I not them assume you got your ideas from it?

Therefore, when I gather all the information gleaned from science, logic, common sense, and the testimonials of history’s scientific icons, I simply have to go where the preponderance of evidence takes me, i.e. to the doorstep (so to speak) of a Supreme Creator. The existence of a Supreme Creator is the logical answer for most of the questions science cannot answer.

Science doesn't have "testimonials". Here you show your ignorance. Science has testible and demonstrable evidence supported by peer review substantiated by replication of said experiments and demonstrable evidence.

Science is not an argument from authority. It's not one or even a group of people asserting something and suggesting it's absolute fact. This is something religious people do.

Science will not factor in a "supreme creator" until there is a reason to. ie: Evidence of such a thing.

For example, the intelligent design we see in nature exists because it had an intelligent designer (God). The first life on earth did come from other life (from an eternal being called God). The material universe was brought into existence by a spiritual Supreme Creator because whatever brought the universe into existence necessarily must exist OUTSIDE of matter, time, energy, and space.

This is genesis in the bible. This is religion. There is absolutely no demonstrable, testable way you can prove this assertion.

Just about every religion has a creation myth behind it. Since yours is on the same playing field as any of theirs, what makes you so certain that yours is right? It's a problem, no?

Let's really get down to brass tacks shall we? What are we really arguing about here?

How we got here? How everything got here or how we came to be humans as opposed to the other species of animals?

A religious person has trouble making a distinction between the two questions because to them, both stem from the same answer.

What this really boils down to is two assertions:

Everything we know of what made by:

a) Magic

b) Natural means

I support b, you apparently support a. If you feel this is false dichotomy, I'll accept that as long as you provide a rationale and not the old stand by that you've somehow already explained it in a reasoned rational response somewhere in the ether.

So, I’ve discovered lots of clues for God's existence, which I’ve briefly mentioned in prior comments. Then, like a detective, I try to pull all those individual clues together for collective analysis (like an emerging picture in a jigsaw puzzle with a few missing pieces). All those clues collectively provide enough of the big picture pointing to the existence of God that I no longer need every single piece of the puzzle to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. From that point on, my "faith" or intuitive "hunch" tells me I'm on the right track...i.e., God really exists! Bingo!

When I found a quarter under my pillow I found clues of the tooth fairy. When I found presents under the tree I found clues of Santa Clause.

Again, finding patterns and assigning them to wishful thinking does not make truth nor a reasoned logical conclusion. You started off with the notion and found things to corroborate what you already believe.

I've written at length why it's fallacious to arrive at your reasoning and instead of restating it, scroll up to my other comments.

For example, the intelligent design we see in nature exists because it had an intelligent designer (God). The first life on earth did come from other life (from an eternal being called God). The material universe was brought into existence by a spiritual Supreme Creator because whatever brought the universe into existence necessarily must exist OUTSIDE of matter, time, energy, and space.

More fallacious logic. This is called "circular reasoning" god is intelligent because he designs and because you see designs had to have an intelligent designer.

Explain the logic behind teeth if you feel they were "intelligently designed". I won't even ask about the eye worm.

Finally, I noticed that you twice mentioned your military service, as if that’s somehow relevant to our discussion. Gee, I was a girl scout for almost seven years, but I don’t feel the need to mention that during a discussion about evolution. In addition, I have several friends who are on active duty and others who are retired from military service. None of them think they are more special than those who didn’t join the military? So, what’s your point? I hope it has nothing to do with insecurity issues.

You mentioned several times you were a science teacher, as scary a thought as that is.

A girl scout is an outstanding thing, however, did you risk your life to protect the cookies? It puts context to how serious I take this discussion.

And you conclude with more ad hominem. This whole discussion was sandwiched with it which tells me we've hit the limits of your intellect.

Paul-977599

I told you their "illogic". God is "spiritual". That, like Occam's razor, explains everything for the simple minded.

Paul, the next time someone throws that you at you, ask them to explain what they mean. Ask them to describe what "spiritual" actually means.

Occam's Razor isn't really used in the context that Rhonda was using it. It's used to determine out of multiple explanations for an occurance, usually the simplest is the right one.

David Hume used that in his statement on Jesus immaculate conception: "What's more likely, that the entire natural order was suspended or that a jewish minx told a lie".

In the age of multiple global conspiracies, somehow the MSM has adopted Occam's razor as the answer for everything which is actually in need of further investigation. CLEARLY a Dereliction of duty by the supposed "journalists". And they are also colluding in their avoidance of many subjects.

Losghost:

YOU WROTE: “Is this not where you get the idea? When I asked you to support where you got the idea of transcendence, you gave me the bible. Why would I not them assume you got your ideas from it?”

MY RESPONSE: Wow, I’ve already answered that question so many times, it’s no longer necessary for me to address it or a host of other similar questions you keep regurgitating. I’ve already explained that I base my overall belief in a Supreme Creator collectively on science, logic, philosophy, the conclusions of historical icons, and plain old common sense. And I arrived at my conclusion WITHOUT the assistance of the Bible, which I’m not closely familiar with anyway. So, your constant nit-picking about my refusal to defend some scriptural passages is totally irrelevant and frankly absurd. I already posted that I like some of the succinct phrases which support what I’ve already concluded from other sources. If you can’t grasp that concept, then it’s not my responsibility to keep re-hashing the same information until you are able to comprehend it.

That being said, there is one observation about the Bible that I find intriguing. I’m coming to the conclusion that no other book in the history of mankind has been more attacked than the Bible. In both ancient and modern times, kings and priests have tried to destroy it, unbelieving people have mocked it, and academics have tried to prove it wrong. Untold numbers of Bibles have been destroyed, and people who believe what it says have been and still are being persecuted and murdered.

In spite of this suppression, the number of copies and languages into which the Bible has been translated is far greater than any other book in existence as far as I know. It continues to be read and believed by people worldwide, remaining the world’s best seller. What could account for this incredible fascination, in spite of extreme opposition? I don’t know, but maybe I should read the Bible to find out what all the fuss is about. But I still don’t think that would affect my strong belief in God one way or another.

REGARDING MATCH STICKS: For some reason, you remain fixated on your match stick riddle (as if it’s deeply profound), whereby somebody tosses a bunch of match sticks into the air and an observer identifies a pattern on the ground, as if that somehow negates my argument about intelligent design. Did you not understand my argument about intelligent design, which can easily rebut your match stick scenario? Here’s what I wrote: When we find “specified complexity” we know we have an especially reliable indicator of intelligent design. Chance can explain away some complexities (like a bunch of match sticks lying in a debatable pattern on the ground), but not specified complexities. For example, a random sequence of letters (or match sticks in a debatable pattern on the ground) can be complex, but not specified (and therefore meaningless). But a Shakespearean sonnet (or match sticks on the ground spelling out the Gettysburg Address) is both complex and specified (and therefore meaningful). The logical conclusion is that you can’t have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare (or a Gettysburg address without Abraham Lincoln). In other words, just as a poem requires a poet, and the Gettysburg Address requires Abraham Lincoln, the world’s incredible designs that continually amaze the most intelligent scientists on earth demand an intelligent Designer. Your stubborn refusal to recognize such an easily understood, common sense conclusion is intellectually dishonest. And I don’t wish to deal with such foolishness on a recurring basis.

Now do you understand why I ignore many of your questions, which I’ve already answered or are irrelevant or are foggy or you won’t accept my answers no matter how many times I explain them? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!

Moreover, for the umpteenth time, I don’t care what you believe or disbelieve about anything I posted on this website. It’s a free country, so you can believe or disbelieve whatever you want. And I can do the same regarding your point of view. Certainly, you must comprehend that notion.

YOU ALSO WROTE: “A girl scout is an outstanding thing, however, did you risk your life to protect the cookies? It puts context to how serious I take this discussion.”

MY RESPONSE: First of all, a Girl Scout is not a “thing” (so how is it that you are taking this discussion seriously?). And no, I didn’t risk my life as a Girl Scout. But I could argue that my time as a Girl Scout may have contributed more to community services than the contributions made by the average member of the armed forces. Don’t misunderstand, I truly appreciate what our armed forces do, but that doesn’t automatically mean they all contribute more to the health and welfare of communities than we Girl Scouts do/did. I recall many charitable activities we participated in, such as collecting money for Children’s Hospital, supporting the “meals on wheels” program, hosting food drives, helping in soup kitchens, Food Bank shopping, assisting elderly citizens with housework, putting together military “Care” packages for the troops, making friendship bracelets for girls in foster care, and even picking up litter along a section of road we volunteered to keep clean. We were constantly involved in some sort of community service projects. And we did all those good deeds WITHOUT ever being on the government payroll. However, I wouldn’t post that information whimsically on a website about evolution just to make some nebulous point or pat myself on the back for special recognition. I’m doing that now just to illustrate how ridiculous such a tactic can be.

REGARDING SPECIAL PLEADING: I deny your accusation that the fallacy of “Special Pleading” applies to my comments. Here’s why: the fallacy of “Special Pleading” is defined as a standard, principle, rule, etc. applied to others while claiming someone else of special interest to be exempt, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXEMPTION. However, I did provide adequate justification for God’s exemption from the rules of nature. I did so by pointing out that God does not reside in the natural realm; He exists outside nature, i.e. in the spiritual world, where the laws of nature do not apply (a concept in logic called “Relevant Difference”). I also pointed out that since God created matter, time, and natural laws, He must logically exist outside the material world and be an eternal, omnipotent being. Thus, God can alter/suspend natural laws whenever He chooses because He made them. So, my belief is that God could have suspended the First Law of Thermodynamics (which essentially states that “nothing comes from nothing”) in order to create the primordial soup from nothing. We already know that the primordial soup containing the ingredients of our universe could not have come into existence by itself from nothing through natural processes, according to the scientific laws that govern the material world. But, as I already stated, those laws don’t apply to God.

REGARDING DNA: You also mentioned DNA as if it’s NOT an impressive phenomenon. Yeah, tell that to any competent scientist and see what reaction you get! I strongly disagree with your assessment. But let's discuss the phenomenon of DNA so we can deduce which option is more likely - did the information in DNA originate from rocks, dirt, pond slime, or some other inanimate material OR from God? (I’ll have to repeat myself somewhat here, but that seems to be a requirement of yours).

So extraordinary is the amount of information recorded in DNA that a single DNA molecule contains enough information to fill thousands of pages in a book. To put that another way, thousands of pages of data that control the functioning of the human body have been encoded inside the nucleus of every cell. This gives rise to an extraordinary picture. Inside the nucleus, itself far smaller than the microscopic cell in which it is contained, is a data bank larger than the contents of several books. Research has shown that this data bank contains actionable information. Let me repeat those three words, "contains actionable information."

We now need to stop and think about what this means. It is easy enough to say that a cell contains thousands of pieces of information. However, we are discussing not a computer or a library, but an area 100 times smaller than a millimeter made up of protein, fat and water molecules. It would be astonishing for only a single piece of information, let alone thousands, to be contained inside this tiny molecule. Moreover, books are inert and inanimate. Someone possessed of consciousness needs to read the information and act on the instructions it contains. Yet DNA is a living source of information that does not just contain data, but also uses that information and acts upon it. Any rational person would conclude that the cell is the work of a superior mind and superior knowledge. It is impossible, as evolutionists maintain, for DNA to have arisen by chance in one single cell, let alone in an organism, such as a human being, consisting of billions of cells.

According to Darwinists, however, this impressive data bank in the cell – capable of holding the equivalent of thousands of pieces of information – came into being spontaneously as the result of random chance. In the eyes of Darwinists, who have no qualms about building another total impossibility on top of that one, chance has compressed all the data in cells that might fill several books, into a space too small to be seen with the naked eye. Darwinists still blindly advocate such a total impossibility. Yet neither the cell nor DNA, its data bank, can emerge from the chance combination of unconscious atoms. Even the very smallest components of living things have been created for a specific purpose, and every one of them are far too complex to admit any possibility of random chance.

You seem to believe that ultimately nothing produced everything, and the demonstrably ordered universe is actually plagued by chaos, and yet an incredible amount of sophisticated information contained in DNA arose from all that chaos. Wow! That’s a strange twist in the concept of probability and deductive reasoning.

MORE ABOUT EX-ATHEIST, ANTHONY FLEW, AND DEISM: English philosopher and former outspoken atheist, Anthony Flew, said his conversion to Deism resulted from his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."

He also said, "The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and ‘coded chemistry’? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem." One of his interesting conclusions was, "I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.”

He summed up his philosophy by saying, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." This idea is key to Deism. Deists are open-minded enough to know the importance of that Socratic standard.

Many people unfamiliar with Deism claim that Anthony Flew developed a belief in God during his old age because he feared death (he died at age 87). The people who made those statements don't realize that Deists openly state they don't know what, if anything, happens to us after our body dies. And Mr. Flew is among those Deists who didn't believe in an afterlife at all. (Because there are no man-made dogmas in Deism, Deist are free to believe whatever makes most sense to them as individuals regarding things like an afterlife.)

REGARDING MAGIC (which you mentioned, not me): Atheists want us to believe that at first, there was nothing, and something happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, some of which magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits, which then turned into dinosaurs and later into humans...makes perfect sense!!

I was once skeptical about the existence of God, but I gave up on that notion because I was enlightened by reason, logic, philosophy, the conclusion of iconic scientists, and common sense.

REGARDING OTHER UNIVERSES: So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn’t any. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich seems to be the first to have noticed: anyone who can believe in multiple universes should have no problem believing in heaven and hell. Just think of them as alternate universes, operating outside space and time according to laws that are inoperative in our universe. This should be quite believable for one who holds that there are an infinite number of universes in which all quantum possibilities are realized.

REGARDING MANY GODS: It doesn’t matter which God or how many Gods ancient peoples believed in; they came to the realization that they were subservient to a higher power/something beyond themselves. And since those ancient people were relatively unsophisticated - compared to today’s standards - those people presumably did the best they could to identify an acceptable version of God.

But let me add the following personal observation. If natural selection is the beginning and end of all things, as some secular evolutionists repeatedly argue, then why has it produced a system (religion) at all that has no practical value for ensuring the survival of the fittest? In other words, if religion is entirely man-made and there is no deity of any kind, then why did the most highly evolved species on the planet invent it? Various religions call upon people to do things that mitigate against their own survival, such as giving the best calf for an offering rather than eating it or giving money away rather than keeping it. How does such behavior advance the survival of the fittest?

In summary, I would argue that all monotheistic religions worship the same God whether or not they realize it. Also, the ancient peoples of the earth knew that a higher being of some kind existed, and they presumably did their best to translate that belief into something they could mentally grasp. In other words, the existence of God was reality, but that reality was fraught with trial and error struggles of comprehension because of the input of imperfect humans.

REGARDING SCIENTISTS AND GOD: Plenty of famous scientists, regardless of their particular religious affiliations, saw a connection between God and science. Albert Einstein said, “EVERYONE who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science BECOMES CONVINCED that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” What part of that CONNECTION don’t you understand?

Many other scientists, whom I identified in past comments, also saw the evidence/clues for a deity that my critics choose to ignore. And most of those scientists I named left an indelible mark on mankind’s quest for knowledge that may never be equaled. In fact, here’s what Galileo, who is often called “The Father of Modern Science,” opined about mathematics: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe."

REGARDING MICRO-EVOLUTION VERSUS MACRO-EVOLUTION: As I’ve stated in an earlier comment, I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Biological evolution is often defined in a couple of ways: as a result of changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation (micro-evolution, which is apparent and obvious to everyone today due to the existence of thousands of examples of different types of dogs, cats, horses, plants, etc. in plain sight), or as a result of the gradual change of living things from one form into a completely different form over the course of time (macro-evolution, which is merely conjecture because there are NOT numerous, obvious examples of transitional life forms in plain sight).

We also know that reproductive isolating mechanisms exist to ensure that species remain distinct in nature. That’s why dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, fish remain fish, apes remain apes, humans remain humans, etc. Such observations are common knowledge and are part of our basic understanding of nature and natural processes. Adherents of evolution still haven’t presented convincing, obvious examples of transitional life forms, such as a fish turning into a man, or a specific recipe for turning inanimate material into a living human being with a functioning brain. Yet they claim it can be done, despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever! If evolution were true, where are all the thousands (or maybe even millions) of examples of transitional life forms that must exist somewhere? I’m referring to critters that are half dog/half cat, half ape/half man, half reptile/half bird, etc. That seems like such a fundamental question that is being ignored in this whole discussion.

REGARDING DESIGN AND COMMON SENSE: Life shows every possible characteristic of design by an intelligent designer. If you ask any person to define what characteristics would indicate that an object has been made by an intelligent designer (such as form, complexity, independence of parts, integrated components, etc.) life exhibits these same characteristics. In addition to this, all basic types of animal life appear completely developed, not partially developed. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, arteries, veins, intestines, or any other vital organs.

Actually, if a reptile leg were to evolve into the wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. How could such a reptile survive an attack from a predator or catch prey while its legs were in the process of evolving? Before it turned into something else, the animal would become extinct. Adherence to the teachings of evolution, masquerading as science, has blinded people to the truth. There’s an old adage which states, “In claiming to be wise, mankind has become foolish.”

If that’s not enough, here’s an easily understandable analogy about the concept of design: it obviously takes a mind to build a house. A home electrical system requires the skilled labor of an electrician who has spent many years learning his trade. The plumbing requires the work of a plumber who has worked for years as an apprentice. The structure of the house requires the skilled labor of a team of carpenters. The heating system, insulation, drywall, roofing, siding, finishing, carpeting, and landscaping all require planning, skill, and intelligence before a finished house results.

Each part of the human body has corresponding components. Our nervous system is far more complex than the electrical system of a house. Our blood vessels, heart, and lungs are infinitely more complex than any home heating and ventilation system. Our digestive tract is more intricately designed than any plumbing system. Our body fat insulates far more efficiently than any home insulation. Our skin is far more durable and complex than drywall, siding, paint, or carpeting.

It takes a mind to conceive, design, and build a house. So, how can we believe that it did not take a far superior creative intelligence to conceive and create the human body? How can anyone believe that the marvelous human body merely resulted from mindless random chance?

And how can anyone believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe could accidentally create human beings filled with personality, morals, compassion, meaning, and purpose? It seems reasonable to me that only a mind (God) could create matter (human beings) with such attributes. In the final analysis, there are only two options: either matter came before mind or mind came before matter. All reasonable evidence points to the latter (I’ve already explained why in a previous comment).

hambone johnson:

YOU WROTE: “First, a Supreme Being that could create an entire Universe must then, by definition, be more complex than its creation. From where did this Being come?...if a Supreme Being can either be eternal or come from nowhere, then why not the Universe?”

MY RESPONSE: Great questions! But I’ve already answered BOTH in great detail in a couple of previous, lengthy posts. This is what I mean about covering the same ground over and over and over. You and your compatriots apparently have a lot of problems with reading comprehension. Even if you disagree with what I’ve written previously, you could raise specific follow-on points of contention. But your questions indicate to me that you never even read what I wrote or didn’t comprehend my message well enough to ask logical follow-on questions. In either case, I can only suggest that you review my comments IF YOU CARE TO BE ENLIGHTENED about my point of view. But I’m tired of repeating myself and repeating myself and repeating myself.

FINAL THOUGHTS BEFORE MOVING TO OTHER THREADS: For my part, I think I’ve provided more scientific facts, logical conclusions, scientific testimonials, and common sense observations pointing to the existence of God than any of my detractors have for denying His existence. Nevertheless, when all is said and done, it is up to the readers on this thread to determine who presented more evidence and reasoned analysis for each opposing point of view. I wrote there’s a God, and I listed several clues, while my opponents claim there is no God because they can’t see the clues. Also, I’m tired of repeating myself for those who are unable to comprehend what I’ve already written and repeated and repeated and repeated.

But I’ve already answered BOTH in great detail in a couple of previous, lengthy posts.

No, you haven't. From all the responses you've given, the gist appears to be that god is special and therefore does not need to considered the same way as everything else.

So, you seem to be saying, "god is special, so i don't have to prove anything."

That's exactly what losghost referred to as "Special Pleading."

@Rhonda,

Wow, I’ve already answered that question so many times, it’s no longer necessary for me to address it or a host of other similar questions you keep regurgitating. I’ve already explained that I base my overall belief in a Supreme Creator collectively on science, logic, philosophy, the conclusions of historical icons, and plain old common sense. And I arrived at my conclusion WITHOUT the assistance of the Bible, which I’m not closely familiar with anyway. So, your constant nit-picking about my refusal to defend some scriptural passages is totally irrelevant and frankly absurd. I already posted that I like some of the succinct phrases which support what I’ve already concluded from other sources. If you can’t grasp that concept, then it’s not my responsibility to keep re-hashing the same information until you are able to comprehend it.

We want to make sure we understand your position. Since you choose to employ dishonesty as a tactic it's important to nail you down to your statements.

You keep referring to these imaginary posts where you "explain at length".

Again, my rebuttal to your logical fallacies has nothing to do with the bible either. I'm not sure why you are confused here.

That being said, there is one observation about the Bible that I find intriguing. I’m coming to the conclusion that no other book in the history of mankind has been more attacked than the Bible. In both ancient and modern times, kings and priests have tried to destroy it, unbelieving people have mocked it, and academics have tried to prove it wrong. Untold numbers of Bibles have been destroyed, and people who believe what it says have been and still are being persecuted and murdered.

First off, no academic will try to prove a negative. That's another fallacy (You do understand what I mean when I call it that, right?)

That's called "Shifting the burden". No one has to prove the bible wrong, the people claiming it's truth have to prove it right and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Anyway, this is another red herring.

In spite of this suppression, the number of copies and languages into which the Bible has been translated is far greater than any other book in existence as far as I know. It continues to be read and believed by people worldwide, remaining the world’s best seller. What could account for this incredible fascination, in spite of extreme opposition? I don’t know, but maybe I should read the Bible to find out what all the fuss is about. But I still don’t think that would affect my strong belief in God one way or another.

Who is suppressing the bible? I suggest you do read it, from cover to cover and remember, the god in the front is the god in the back.

For some reason, you remain fixated on your match stick riddle (as if it’s deeply profound), whereby somebody tosses a bunch of match sticks into the air and an observer identifies a pattern on the ground, as if that somehow negates my argument about intelligent design. Did you not understand my argument about intelligent design, which can easily rebut your match stick scenario? Here’s what I wrote: When we find “specified complexity” we know we have an especially reliable indicator of intelligent design. Chance can explain away some complexities (like a bunch of match sticks lying in a debatable pattern on the ground), but not specified complexities.

It's just an example, and again, more ad hominem.

I understood what you wrote, it's just completely fallacious reasoning. Do you understand what I mean by that? I'm not sure you do at this point.

You lifted this directly from wikipedia:

"Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory" ...

In Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance. Dembski argues that it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes. Therefore, Dembski argues, the fact that specified complex patterns can be found in living things indicates some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence. Dembski further argues that one can rigorously show by applying no free lunch theorems the inability of evolutionary algorithms to select or generate configurations of high specified complexity.

I had to look that up because I knew what each of those words meant, just not together.

Let's go to the creationist clock example if you dislike matchsticks so much. The problem you face is that you are not finding a clock on the beach, you are finding a clock, on a sea of clocks, on a world made of clocks, in a universe made of clocks.

So, I wonder if he ever applied that math to the existence of god or a god. Somehow I doubt it.

This entire argument is a fallacious argument from incredulity. Do you understand what that is?

Your stubborn refusal to recognize such an easily understood, common sense conclusion is intellectually dishonest.

Nice try, but no points there. I've shown time and again where the reasoning to reach this conclusion is abjectly wrong and utterly fallacious. It's not being stubborn, it's being the complete opposite of your accusation and applying reason and logic.

Now do you understand why I ignore many of your questions

Asked and answered: Because you either cannot answer or answering will put you are a severe disadvantage in the discourse.

I deny your accusation that the fallacy of “Special Pleading” applies to my comments. Here’s why: the fallacy of “Special Pleading” is defined as a standard, principle, rule, etc. applied to others while claiming someone else of special interest to be exempt, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXEMPTION. However, I did provide adequate justification for God’s exemption from the rules of nature. I did so by pointing out that God does not reside in the natural realm; He exists outside nature, i.e. in the spiritual world, where the laws of nature do not apply (a concept in logic called “Relevant Difference”). I also pointed out that since God created matter, time, and natural laws, He must logically exist outside the material world and be an eternal, omnipotent being.

Apparently you do not understand this fallacy. You presented a single bible verse and somehow came to the conclusion that you are allowed to invoke "special pleading" that not only assumes a supernatural being, but that it can subvert the entire natural order and that it's allowed to reference itself to substantiate it's existence.

Relevant Difference - does not apply here. That requires evidence, of which you have none. Asserting something ad nausea is not evidence.

You really need to read what you type before you post it.

So, my belief is that God could have suspended the First Law of Thermodynamics (which essentially states that “nothing comes from nothing”) in order to create the primordial soup from nothing.

Ok, good. Now you are starting to be honest. Again, equivocating the term "law" to mean "rule" when it's an observation.

Also, you have failed to prove god and cannot then move on to argue that he created everything or even claim to know how or where he exists.

We already know that the primordial soup containing the ingredients of our universe could not have come into existence by itself from nothing through natural processes, according to the scientific laws that govern the material world. But, as I already stated, those laws don’t apply to God.

No, we do not already know that. Only religion deals in such absolutes. How are you so certain?

And yes, again with the special pleading on god.

REGARDING DNA: You also mentioned DNA as if it’s NOT an impressive phenomenon. Yeah, tell that to any competent scientist and see what reaction you get! I strongly disagree with your assessment. But let's discuss the phenomenon of DNA so we can deduce which option is more likely - did the information in DNA originate from rocks, dirt, pond slime, or some other inanimate material OR from God? (I’ll have to repeat myself somewhat here, but that seems to be a requirement of yours).

Strawman. Not once did I ever say it was not impressive but you really nailed that argument I never made.

Do rocks, pond slime, or any other inanimate object you can think of have different atomic compositions than any biological material?

So extraordinary is the amount of information recorded in DNA that a single DNA molecule contains enough information to fill thousands of pages in a book. To put that another way, thousands of pages of data that control the functioning of the human body have been encoded inside the nucleus of every cell. This gives rise to an extraordinary picture. Inside the nucleus, itself far smaller than the microscopic cell in which it is contained, is a data bank larger than the contents of several books. Research has shown that this data bank contains actionable information. Let me repeat those three words, "contains actionable information."

First, off this little gem of disinformation you posted is listed almost verbatum on several church and anti-darwin sites.

It makes several fallacious equivocations.

First, that DNA is data. It's not. It's a molecule containing atomic structures, much like anything else on earth.

Second, and I went over this already, the term "information" is being applied by you, the pattern seeking human.

If you need more on this, scroll up where I already answered you on this at length.

We now need to stop and think about what this means. It is easy enough to say that a cell contains thousands of pieces of information. However, we are discussing not a computer or a library, but an area 100 times smaller than a millimeter made up of protein, fat and water molecules. It would be astonishing for only a single piece of information, let alone thousands, to be contained inside this tiny molecule. Moreover, books are inert and inanimate. Someone possessed of consciousness needs to read the information and act on the instructions it contains. Yet DNA is a living source of information that does not just contain data, but also uses that information and acts upon it. Any rational person would conclude that the cell is the work of a superior mind and superior knowledge. It is impossible, as evolutionists maintain, for DNA to have arisen by chance in one single cell, let alone in an organism, such as a human being, consisting of billions of cells.

You can repeat the term information over and over and over. It's not going to make a molecule containing 5 basic atoms anything else than what it is.

If I mix mentos and diet coke, I am going to get a reaction. Molecules react with each other and specific molecules observed to have certain reactions remain consistant in their reactions making them predictable. ie: If I drop mentos in diet coke and get results from the reaction, I can then take this "information" and pass it you that can then try it yourself.

This predictability is what you are equivocating in the use of the term "information".

Really what your passage is about is going to an extreme to really point to intelligent design ie: biblical creationism. We all know who you intend as the designer.

According to Darwinists, however, this impressive data bank in the cell – capable of holding the equivalent of thousands of pieces of information – came into being spontaneously as the result of random chance. In the eyes of Darwinists, who have no qualms about building another total impossibility on top of that one, chance has compressed all the data in cells that might fill several books, into a space too small to be seen with the naked eye.

Wow, nailed that strawman! Bravo. Now let's talk about what evolution is really about. Change over time.

Evolution doesn't deal with creation or even origination. It just deals with the observation that living things change over time.

It's not a hard concept and after 150 years of efforts, it's not even a topic that is up for debate in scientific circles anymore.

Darwinists still blindly advocate such a total impossibility. Yet neither the cell nor DNA, its data bank, can emerge from the chance combination of unconscious atoms. Even the very smallest components of living things have been created for a specific purpose, and every one of them are far too complex to admit any possibility of random chance.

This is a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity". So you cannot imagine it, it cannot be so.

Oh, and evoution is dead opposite from random, it's quite specific so I would read up on that and stop using the term. It makes you sound ignorant of the subject.

You seem to believe that ultimately nothing produced everything, and the demonstrably ordered universe is actually plagued by chaos, and yet an incredible amount of sophisticated information contained in DNA arose from all that chaos. Wow! That’s a strange twist in the concept of probability and deductive reasoning.

Thank you for letting me know what I believe. I wasn't sure. Again, nailed that strawman! He is taking a beating in this discussion.

Now let's talk about what I do believe. I believe we do not know yet where everything came from or even if it was or was not always here. I do not need an answer "right now" and rely on having any answer instead of the right one. I have patience.

Here you are again with probability. I asked you to show the math. Your reasoning has been excessively fallacious.

MORE ABOUT EX-ATHEIST, ANTHONY FLEW, AND DEISM: English philosopher and former outspoken atheist, Anthony Flew, said his conversion to Deism resulted from his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."

Irrelevant. Why are we rehashing the same discussion? The pope was an atheist at some point in his life... yada yada. Scroll up.

Many people unfamiliar with Deism claim that Anthony Flew developed a belief in God during his old age because he feared death (he died at age 87). The people who made those statements don't realize that Deists openly state they don't know what, if anything, happens to us after our body dies. And Mr. Flew is among those Deists who didn't believe in an afterlife at all. (Because there are no man-made dogmas in Deism, Deist are free to believe whatever makes most sense to them as individuals regarding things like an afterlife.)

Ok. But again, doesn't make it real. Why such concern with what happens after you cease to be?

What about where you were? What's wrong with stating you will be where you were?

REGARDING MAGIC (which you mentioned, not me): Atheists want us to believe that at first, there was nothing, and something happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, some of which magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits, which then turned into dinosaurs and later into humans...makes perfect sense!!

More strawman! Nailed it!

Atheists don't want you to believe anything other than the reasoning you use to arrive at a supernatural being is fallacious logic. Try addressing the actual issue.

You really seem to have a problem separating evolution from the big bang don't you?

I was once skeptical about the existence of God, but I gave up on that notion because I was enlightened by reason, logic, philosophy, the conclusion of iconic scientists, and common sense.

I'm not skeptical about the existence of god. I am skeptical of the people telling me about the existence of a god.

You were not enlightened, you were indoctrinated. Big difference.

REGARDING OTHER UNIVERSES: So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn’t any. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich seems to be the first to have noticed: anyone who can believe in multiple universes should have no problem believing in heaven and hell. Just think of them as alternate universes, operating outside space and time according to laws that are inoperative in our universe. This should be quite believable for one who holds that there are an infinite number of universes in which all quantum possibilities are realized.

What empirical evidence would you find in any theorhetical physics beyond the atomic bomb, slit experiment and any other number of experiments that corroborate the math?

We can talk at length about this if you really want to go into it.

REGARDING MANY GODS: It doesn’t matter which God or how many Gods ancient peoples believed in; they came to the realization that they were subservient to a higher power/something beyond themselves. And since those ancient people were relatively unsophisticated - compared to today’s standards - those people presumably did the best they could to identify an acceptable version of God.

It matters a great deal and here I think you are on the right track but come short of hitting the mark.

They did the best they could to explain the natural phenomina happening around them and came up with gods. Which would explain why gods act through natural means, up to and including the god of the bible.

Just like you are doing now, in the absense of an explanation, you will provide one. That's what they did, it's what you are doing now. I would argue it's human nature.

But let me add the following personal observation. If natural selection is the beginning and end of all things, as some secular evolutionists repeatedly argue, then why has it produced a system (religion) at all that has no practical value for ensuring the survival of the fittest? In other words, if religion is entirely man-made and there is no deity of any kind, then why did the most highly evolved species on the planet invent it?

I'll ignore the strawman at the beginning and it's non-sequitor conclusion. You speak as if one religion and one class of religion is all that exists.

Go read up on eastern religions that are completely incompatable with western god head concepts.

Various religions call upon people to do things that mitigate against their own survival, such as giving the best calf for an offering rather than eating it or giving money away rather than keeping it. How does such behavior advance the survival of the fittest?

Here you actually have a brilliant moment and are sooooo close and then lose it. Not every religion involves ritual sacrifice, only a few.

Religion allows people to feel some manner of control over that which they have no control. I go to church and pray, I can change x, y, z. I sacrifice this lamb and appease the gods, I can ask them to do x,y,z. I throw this virgin into a pit of fire, the volcano gods will not destroy our village. If the son of god sacrifices himself, we get to go to heaven.

Seeing a pattern here, pattern seeking human?

Fear Response. Why would fear response advance survival of the fittest?

In summary, I would argue that all monotheistic religions worship the same God whether or not they realize it. Also, the ancient peoples of the earth knew that a higher being of some kind existed, and they presumably did their best to translate that belief into something they could mentally grasp. In other words, the existence of God was reality, but that reality was fraught with trial and error struggles of comprehension because of the input of imperfect humans.

So you've changed your mind from the wisdom of the ages to now ancient peoples that couldn't grasp the translation into the abrahamic god?

Those imperfect humans are the only support you have to argue a god at all. You are killing your own argument here.

REGARDING SCIENTISTS AND GOD: Plenty of famous scientists, regardless of their particular religious affiliations, saw a connection between God and science. Albert Einstein said, “EVERYONE who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science BECOMES CONVINCED that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” What part of that CONNECTION don’t you understand?

Eintein? So a guy stuck in the McCarthy era which brought us such lovely constitutional things like "in god we trust" on our money, and "Under god" in our pledge of allegience, and where if you weren't a god fearing American you were a no good commie pinko we could expect to hear Einstein really share his views without fear of reprisal.

Anyway, this is yet another, in a very long line of fallacious arguments on your part. This one is called Fallacious argument from authority. It doesn't matter what Einstein believed. Newton was a genius and stopped at god, it cost us 400 years of knowledge on gravity.

Many other scientists, whom I identified in past comments, also saw the evidence/clues for a deity that my critics choose to ignore. And most of those scientists I named left an indelible mark on mankind’s quest for knowledge that may never be equaled. In fact, here’s what Galileo, who is often called “The Father of Modern Science,” opined about mathematics: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe."

The other "scientist" you mentioned wrote the book of pandas and people which was directly used s evidence in the trial of Kitzmiller v Dover School board. Not only was it not deemed to be factual, but also ruled to not even be science.

REGARDING MICRO-EVOLUTION VERSUS MACRO-EVOLUTION: As I’ve stated in an earlier comment, I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Biological evolution is often defined in a couple of ways: as a result of changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation (micro-evolution, which is apparent and obvious to everyone today due to the existence of thousands of examples of different types of dogs, cats, horses, plants, etc. in plain sight), or as a result of the gradual change of living things from one form into a completely different form over the course of time (macro-evolution, which is merely conjecture because there are NOT numerous, obvious examples of transitional life forms in plain sight).

Only creatonists use the term macro and micro evolution. Are you going for a record seeing how many fallacies you can argue in a single discussion?

This one is called "false dichotomy". There is no micro vs macro debate. This exists only on creationist websites. Then you come in with a big win on your argument from personal incredulity.

You are arguing that you can walk down the street, but walking to the next town is an impossibility.

We see this transition all the time and is readily observable. Look in the mirror. Look at a picture of your parents. Look at a picture of your grandparents, then your great grandparents.

Do you look more like your parents? Do you look a little like your great grandparents but no so much?

There is your variation over time.

We also know that reproductive isolating mechanisms exist to ensure that species remain distinct in nature. That’s why dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, fish remain fish, apes remain apes, humans remain humans, etc. Such observations are common knowledge and are part of our basic understanding of nature and natural processes. Adherents of evolution still haven’t presented convincing, obvious examples of transitional life forms, such as a fish turning into a man, or a specific recipe for turning inanimate material into a living human being with a functioning brain. Yet they claim it can be done, despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever! If evolution were true, where are all the thousands (or maybe even millions) of examples of transitional life forms that must exist somewhere? I’m referring to critters that are half dog/half cat, half ape/half man, half reptile/half bird, etc. That seems like such a fundamental question that is being ignored in this whole discussion.

Are wolves dogs? Are lions cheetahs? or Leopards housecats? Are whales fish? Perhaps you haven't fully thought out that question.

Um, humans ARE apes. You must have missed that part when you got your degree to teach science.

You show a really simplistic understanding of taxonomy here amd no understanding of evolutionary concepts. At least if you are going to argue against something, take the time the understand it a little.

Fish do not turn into man and it's nothing but strawman to suggest that what is being suggested. At some point in the tree they would share a common ancester. Like the parents and grandparents example.

I'm trying to help you understand this, because it's painfully obvious you do not.

You are going after windmills with this argument. You want a transitional fossil, every fossil is transitional.

This is what you are asking for:

Take a picture of a 1yr old child every day until they are 90 years old. We can agree that the first and last picture have some pertinant features that allow us to identify it as the same person,same species (human) and same gender/race. (Taxonomy)

We can also agree that the first picture and last picture look very very different. (Variation over time)

Now what you want me to do is to pull out a single picture that shows exactly the time when the baby became an old man. (transitional fossil)

Do you understand the failure of your reasoning here?

There is plenty of evidence of evolution. Go to your local doctor and ask him/her what an MDRO is and how they get that way.

Lastly, go visit a natural history museum some time. You'll be surrounded by it.

REGARDING DESIGN AND COMMON SENSE: Life shows every possible characteristic of design by an intelligent designer. If you ask any person to define what characteristics would indicate that an object has been made by an intelligent designer (such as form, complexity, independence of parts, integrated components, etc.) life exhibits these same characteristics. In addition to this, all basic types of animal life appear completely developed, not partially developed. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, arteries, veins, intestines, or any other vital organ

You are applying patterns my little pattern seeking human. How would you know what partially developed is? Define what you mean by "half developed" and I'll answer this. Until then, I'll not venture a guess at what level of abstraction you stop at developed vs half.

For exampled, I might consider an eye stalk to be a half developed eye, a human eye to be a half developed hawk eye, peguin feathers are half developed for flight but developed well for swimming, so you really need to further define this. I don't consider anything "half developed" except for birth defects.

Actually, if a reptile leg were to evolve into the wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. How could such a reptile survive an attack from a predator or catch prey while its legs were in the process of evolving? Before it turned into something else, the animal would become extinct. Adherence to the teachings of evolution, masquerading as science, has blinded people to the truth. There’s an old adage which states, “In claiming to be wise, mankind has become foolish.”

I see. So a squirrel that developes extra skin around it's legs that allows it to glide from tree to tree as opposed to jump from tree to tree to get away from things that would eat it and that would be a "bad leg"?

You also tend to think evolution occurs to the individual over time? You really REALLY do not understand what it is you are arguing against.

Just like my parent-grandparent-great grandparent example. You do not turn into your cousins. You and your cousins share a common ancester or several ie: your grandparents and great grandparents.

If that’s not enough, here’s an easily understandable analogy about the concept of design: it obviously takes a mind to build a house. A home electrical system requires the skilled labor of an electrician who has spent many years learning his trade. The plumbing requires the work of a plumber who has worked for years as an apprentice. The structure of the house requires the skilled labor of a team of carpenters. The heating system, insulation, drywall, roofing, siding, finishing, carpeting, and landscaping all require planning, skill, and intelligence before a finished house results.

An animal is not a house. You know these things of a house for several reasons:

1. You can see it being built.

2. You can talk to the builder and suggest changes

3. You can go to the factories and watch the various bits being built.

4. Houses do not replicate and build themselves.

5. Your analogy is horrible.

It takes a mind to conceive, design, and build a house. So, how can we believe that it did not take a far superior creative intelligence to conceive and create the human body? How can anyone believe that the marvelous human body merely resulted from mindless random chance?

We already concluded that a house is not a self replicating biological organism and that evolution is the exact opposite of random chance.

And you end with a fallacious argument from ignorance. Hey, at least you are consistent. (You can't imagine it, so it cannot be).

And how can anyone believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe could accidentally create human beings filled with personality, morals, compassion, meaning, and purpose?

Let me respond to this fallacious argument from ignorance with another.
How could someone look at the universe and only think that it revolves around nothing but them?

In the final analysis, there are only two options: either matter came before mind or mind came before matter. All reasonable evidence points to the latter (I’ve already explained why in a previous comment).

I chuckled when I read your reference comment and it further references some other unspecified comment. Par for course.. lol.

ok, here we go.

Your argument as a whole is a fallacy called: argumentum verbosium

List of fallacious reasons you used during this conversation:

Bible Validity: Used shifting the burden fallacy

Specified Complexity: Used personal incredulity arguement

God being transcendant: Uses Special pleading

Intelligent Design: False Dichotomy, Denying the anticedant, Icredulity, and on and on.

Evolutionary Concepts: Strawman

Evolutionary theory and cause: Strawman, personal incredulity

DNA: Strawman

Scientists and god: Irrelevant, argument from authority.

Micro vs macro evolution: False dichotomy

Animal evolution: Argument from ignorance and just plain ignorance.

What's at stake here:

There was a time during the 17th century when man was not satisfied with "god dunnit" as the answer. This precluded the scientific method and eventually became it.

During this time, in the past 400 years out of the entire timeline of human existence whether you believe it to be 100,000+ years or just 6,000. In that tiny hair's width of a time we have eradicated diseases, doubled our lifespan, discovered electricity, flight, computers, internet, super conductors, landed on the moon, landed a rover on mars, discovered solar power, and on and on.

So basically out of the 100,000 years of human existense and several thousand years of religion, science has brought us roughly 90% of all human acheivement.

And you would like to undermine that. You call into question the methodology and individuals working under that method.

You work to undermine the institutions and professions that brought us these things.

You work to bring us back to a time before that age. That's where you want us to be. Where god is the answer for everything and for everything the answer is god.

Do you know what age came before the age of enlightenment? The Dark Ages

So, how can we believe that it did not take a far superior creative intelligence to conceive and create the human body?

Considering the flaws in the human body, I would doubt the "superior creative intelligence" of this being you describe.

hambone johnson

Considering the flaws in the human body, I would doubt the "superior creative intelligence" of this being you describe.

She/He completely glossed over my question of the logic behind human teeth. It's really hard to reconcile that with intelligent design. I'm a mere human and can imagine a good number of better ideas. How about not having to eat at all?

Also, and oddly enough, creationists bypass one major question. A perfect being would have no need to create, anything. Having a need, any need, is not perfect.

Not to mention excreting various fluids, etc.

Also, my back hurts, because I'm not quite "designed" well enough to be walking upright.

FINAL THOUGHTS BEFORE MOVING TO OTHER THREADS: For my part, I think I’ve provided more scientific facts, logical conclusions, scientific testimonials, and common sense observations pointing to the existence of God than any of my detractors have for denying His existence. Nevertheless, when all is said and done, it is up to the readers on this thread to determine who presented more evidence and reasoned analysis for each opposing point of view. I wrote there’s a God, and I listed several clues, while my opponents claim there is no God because they can’t see the clues. Also, I’m tired of repeating myself for those who are unable to comprehend what I’ve already written and repeated and repeated and repeated.

You have done more then your part Rhonda. I applaud you for making a stand and defending the faith, and still showing issues with science. You can give them all the answers , but they will still keep coming back with more questions. I have seen you answer them clearly, but I guess answers is not what they are looking for.

Perhaps its a DNA thing, where their side and our just cant see eye to eye.. It could all be on a genetic level, or just like the bible says, people see the truth, but still reject it.

People like that do exist. Think of all the people who seen Jesus do all his miracles, but still refused to believe he was the Son of God.

hambone johnson

Not to mention excreting various fluids, etc.

Also, my back hurts, because I'm not quite "designed" well enough to be walking upright.

You were designed perfectly, you can thank Adam and eve for bringing sin into the world for your pains you are having, and the genetics and or injuries you have that are making your back hurt.

Im out of here too. Its been fun but there is no more to discuss here.

You were designed perfectly, you can thank Adam and eve for bringing sin into the world for your pains you are having, and the genetics and or injuries you have that are making your back hurt.

My head hurts trying to reconcile the logic behind this. Sin is an imaginary crime imposed by god, so if you thank anyone, thank god for sin. It's his invention according to the doctrine.

Im out of here too. Its been fun but there is no more to discuss here.

I wish you well, health, and success. Even if you do not change your mind on your conclusions, I do hope you may have picked up a few things about how you came to reach them.

you can thank Adam and eve for bringing sin into the world for your pains you are having, and the genetics and or injuries you have that are making your back hurt.

But didn't Jesus die for our sins? Shouldn't I be good to go?

Remember All Religions are Interpreted, meaning a Man Interpreted the writings, and as we know today, Everything in existence today where man is concerned is Not what it appears, History just as Religion and Government have all been Subverted in Favor of the Powers that Be. Its simply about Power and Control of the Masses.

"God does not pit people against each other for his own benefit"

Are you sure about that ?

What about Muslims Jews and Christians killing each other over religion.

Just think about that for a bit

Wow, didn't take long for this to be about Eeeeebil O'Bummer (tm), didn't it? Shouldn't you be taking medication for these obsessions of yours, eddie?...

Oh, and while we're at it--the only people referring to Obama as a "messiah" or "God" are you RWNJs. Not surprising, since you seem to like living in a fact-free vacuum...

Dave, you're refering to eddie's irrational Obama rant and ask him to "just think about that for a bit."? That a$$clown obviously does not think. You're asking too much.

Eddie, take your meds. Perhaps then Obama won't scare you so much.

Try increasing your meds Eddie.

Oh Eddie, grow up!

Cart before the horse much, Battleon? We have to have the knowledge before we can do anything with it! And here I thought I was impatient...

Batteon, just wait. Fields need to lie fallow before they produce, bread need to rest while the yeast rises. In other words: Oh ye of little faith.

Electromagnetic forces are MUCH MUCH stronger than gravity. If you take two heavy charged particles (protons, for example) the repulsion force between them (because of both being the same charge) is many orders of magnitude greater than gravitational attraction. If you managed to make these protons close enough, the (even stronger) strong nuclear force will hold them together, even though electrostatic force tugs them apart.

Gravity only comes into play when the bodies are electrically neutral.

Good job AlexG for telling Glendala516 she doesn't know what she's talking about... or she has alot of Googling to do !

If only she knew about e-volts required, or what Plank energy was, she wouldn't make silly comments about Super Nova's when she should have said a "black hole", but yes, in order of e-volts, the strongest of the four fndamental forces is "the strong interaction (Higgs Boson), then the electromagnetic force, then the weak force (thank goodness for radio-active decay) then the weakest, (sorry Glendala516) is gravity... Except that gravity has the greatest range, and if you get enough of it, beyond nuclear density, (which is beyond Glendala516's understanding at this point) you can get a black hole and if enough stars are available, a super-massive black hole can eventually power a Quasar, which is far more energetic than a Super Nova... of course more than just gravity is involved.

What's neat, is that the Higgs Boson particle physics will lead and step incrementally "eventually", to FTL communications/travel... not in our lifetime, not even two hundred years after our Great-great-great-great -great-great-great grand-kids lifetimes (unless we get outside help) , but it's a first step.

We don't even have nuclear fusion for power generation yet... and fusion for power generation is elementary and easy compared to generating useful quantities of anti-matter, black matter, and gravity wells/manipulation which the Higgs Boson Particle is essential for. We still have a long way to go. One Higgs Boson particle detected... That's like discovering the idea for an oar... not actually building an oar... just thinking about it...for a canoe. The USS Nimitz would still be along way off.

The Higgs Boson particle is called the "God" particle because it a major part of the puzzle to unify the four fundamental forces named above. Now we have abunch of people that have turned this post into a religious discussion exclusively. Their missing the point. The Higgs Boson particle is not really a God particle, any more than a quark is, except it helps gravity work right... Quarks help build Protons, so they are special too, you could say it's "all part of God's creation". It's taking us a while to discover these things though. Moores law does NOT apply here.