[De Maria]

Your rebuttal is:
- an invisible guy in the sky did it

You're being sarcastic... again.

But OK lets go with that.

We believe an invisible God did it. Ok.

You believe that unintelligent inanimate matter did it.?

We have faith in God.

You have faith in unintelligent inanimate matter.

I think our stance is more reasonable. What do you think?

NK, haven't you said that you're not an atheist? Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but if I'm right, that's intriguing that you should believe in God but not that God created life.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

Not true : they admit they do not know precisely where and how that first life form arose. But there is more and more OSE'd information on self replicating molecules, hinting at the direction science has to look for research WITHOUT having to assume "creating" deities for which there is no OSE at all!!

No amount of speculating can get around the fact that intelligence does not come from unintelligent nonliving matter.

No amount of speculating can get around the fact that complex systems don't just make themselves by accident.

Speculation of that nature is speculating against the evidence and has a very apt name. It is called blind faith. If you believe that complex systems simply make themselves from unintelligent inanimate matter, you simply have blind faith in your speculations. But you have no facts to back it up.

It takes intelligence at the level of a human being to write "get me a donut". And that is a simple message. The messages in the gene code of the simplest organism is millions of times more comples than that. Therefore it would take an intelligence millions of times more intelligent than a human being to create it.

And simple organisms are millions of times less complex than complex organisms. So the intelligence required to create them increases proportionally.

First of all : first life did not had to have the same genetic coding as our current one.

Do you have evidence for this statement or are you making a statement of faith?

Also, how does a different genetic coding make the case that God did not create that one also? After all, both of them would carry messages and both require intelligence.

It most has probably evolved into that system.

Probably? Do you have the probability quantified? Is it 90% probability or 80% or 1%?

On what are you basing this probability? How many experiments have you conducted or has anyone conducted and how were the results quantified?

Or is this another faith statement? You believe it "probably" evolved into that system.

WE DO NOT PRECISELY KNOW !!!

What does the word "precisely" mean to you? To me it means that you're close to an answer. You've got several possibilities but you just need to tweak it.

However that belies the fact that you don't know at all. Even intelligent human scientists have tried to make life from inanimate matter and they haven't succeeded.

But that is no reason to assume "creating" deities for which there is no OSE at all!!

It's the other way around. The evidence points to an intelligent Creator. There is no reason to assume that unintelligent inanimate objects suddenly decided to make complex intelligent gene codes.

Where is the OSE for your alternative proposal?

Where's the OSE that unintelligent inanimate matter can spontaneously create life.

Where is OSE for the existence on an always existing supra-natural deity that "created" the universe and life all within 6 days ?

Thanks for asking. We can see by the evidence that inanimate unintelligent matter can't create life without a Creator.

And guess what, there is a Corporation which has existed for 2000 years which has catalogued the life of a man who said He is God. And this man proved that He is God by His miracles. These miracles were witnessed by His contemporaries who were convinced by them so much so that many of them went to their death proclaiming His Divinity.

This Corporation has kept the records of His Teachings and of the teachings of the Prophets before Him. He verified that these teachings are true and they confirm that God created life.

So we have evidence from the science sphere, evidence from regular life and evidence from the religious sphere converging and confirming each other.

At least within science you are allowed to question anything. In religion every basic query is killed in dogmatic refusal.

No, no. The first universities and places of learning were all religious institutions. But that is besides the point. We are discussing evolution.

Neither can you.

But we can point to the evidence which leads to the very reasonable conclusion that God exists.

Does not look so from your spelling.

Doesn't that argue our case. If intelligence does not come from evolution then from whom does it come? We believe it comes from God who guided evolution. You believe it was generated spontaneously from unintelligent matter.

Which is more reasonable?

Who stated that? I did not. There are a lot of intelligent Christians who can think along scientific lines. Creationists either do not seem to understand - or do not want to understand - science and the scientific process of research. They sure misuse science for trying to prove the unprovable. In vain, of course !

No. Its more like you don't understand Christian thought. Christians have proven the existence of God to themselves. But we understand that all we can do is provide the same evidence that led us to believe in God to others and see if they don't start seeing the same thing we see.

You keep calling for proof, but you have no proof for what you believe. Its been proven over and over in these discussions that you simply have a particular world view and faith in its teachings. But you have no proof that God doesn't exist.

Yes indeed. And proven (OSE) to be the correct line of the development of all life on earth.

And if it has been proven then that is more evidence that God guided evolution.

Lets summarize.

1. Evolution can't get to first base without God because life can't spontaneously generate from inanimate uintelligent matter.
2. Evolution can't get to second base for virtually the same reason. The so called simple life forms did not get together and say, "hey, I'm tired of self replicating. Lets make ourselves male and female. It'll be lots more fun."

If there were no intelligent intervention, we would be self replicating today. There is absolutely no chance that self replicating life forms would suddenly need to mate unless an intelligent Creator guided the process.

This is NOT a question board but a discussion board, and my reactions are PRECISELY on topic : they all refer to the posed header that incorrectly states that the theory of evolution proves the existence of God. It does not ! Nothing proves (OSE) the existence of God. God's existence has never been proved (OSE) and I have - from the lack of 2000 years of any evidence into that direction - to assume that that will never been proved. Specially as it is based on dogmatic BELIEF ONLY

So far we've provided more evidence and logic than you. All you've added to this conversation is denial.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[michealb]

see that intelligence doesn't make itself, and realize that only Intelligence can create intelligence.

If this was the case than there would be no intelligence, no us, no god. You would still need intelligence to make god. I know your going to say that god is above the first cause but if the universe could randomly pop god into existence why is it so hard to believe that a universe that popped god into existence would have be able to have life come into existence and intelligence come from that life.

[Credendovidis]

No amount of speculating can get around the fact ....

That there is no OSE for the existence of any supra-natural deity that creates a universe etc. in six days only. All one can do is BELIEVE that such an entity exists.

I made it to the end of the first chapter of your reply, and left it at that. No need to read all that belief based word diarhoea you keep posting again and again and again. I warned you before not to post too long replies any way.

Believe whatever you like : fine with me. For me : I accept the findings and all other OSE on which the Theory of Evolution is based, and the thesis of abiogenesis (how incomplete that may be), instead of believing in some mythical fable of a non-visible deity etc. etc. etc. etc. etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

:>)

.

[De Maria]

If this was the case than there would be no intelligence, no us, no god.

That kind of takes back to the subject of the origin of the universe.

If God did not exist, you would be correct. Nothing from nothing is nothing.

Which means that Something Intelligent has to exist from all eternity in order to bring something else into being.

You would still need intelligence to make god.

Here's the logical options.

Either we have nothing intelligent existing before time and space. Which means that nothing can come about. We can never leave the state of nothingness.

Or we can have Something Intelligent existing before time and space. Which means that this Intelligence created time and space and the universe and then created life in the universe.

Can you think of any other options? Or are there problems with the syllogisms.

I know your going to say that god is above the first cause but if the universe could randomly pop god into existence why is it so hard to believe that a universe that popped god into existence would have be able to have life come into existence and intelligence come from that life.

According to the scientific evidence, the universe had a beginning. It is called the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was no time and space. Therefore, there was nothing.

Something Intelligent had to exist in order to cause that Big Bang and bring the universe into existence.

You are postulating that the universe brought God into being. But if that were the case, then we would have never gotten to the Big Bang, because according to the evidence before the Big Bang, there was neither time nor space. And if you are saying that God was not there either, then nothing from nothing is nothing. And so there would be nothing today.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

that there is no OSE for the existence of any supra-natural deity that creates a universe etc. in six days only. All one can do is BELIEVE that such an entity exists.

I made it to the end of the first chapter of your reply, and left it at that. No need to read all that belief based word diarhoea you keep posting again and again and again. I warned you before not to post too long replies any way.

Believe whatever you like : fine with me. For me : I accept the findings and all other OSE on which the Theory of Evolution is based, and the thesis of abiogenesis (how incomplete that may be), instead of believing in some mythical fable of a non-visible deity etc. etc. etc. etc. etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

In other words, you don't want us to bother you with the facts, you want to continue to believe that immaterial nonliving matter can bring life into being.

Bye!:eek:

[Credendovidis]

In other words, you don't want us to bother you with the facts, you want to continue to believe that immaterial nonliving matter can bring life into being.

Not at all ! You have no facts. All you have is belief in an invisible deity that is supra-natural, omni-scient, supra-potent, and omni-benevolent, but that still condemns you to "hell" if you do not follow it's rules. A deity who could create an entire universe in 6 days, but was unable to create and provide "his" instruction manual for humanity itself, but required imperfect human beings all along the entire production and distribution path.
A deity for which there is not the slightest iota of OSE for it's existence.

And against that total lack of support you attack a scientific theory that is supported near fully along the entire path, from early life to what that life became some 3.500.000.000 years later.

Now who is here the one who does not want to bother others with facts, but who sees his own "craftiness" shown for what it really is : complete humbug based on religious belief and nothing else ?

From me you may believe whatever you want, but do not attack the Theory of Evolution or any other scientific research project unless you can provide OSE for your own religious mythical wild claims.

Bye De Maria !

:>)

.

[michealb]

Are knots intelligently designed? They are more complex than a straight line. Does god tangle the christmas lights or is this complexity come from the random motions of the wire? What about hurricanes does god form every hurricane that kills thousands of people because they are more complex than a standard storm. What about waves they are more complex? Does god form the waves that killed hundreds of thousands of people? If this is your god you worship the devil.

[Credendovidis]

All questions like this one (and like "The theory of the Big Bang proves the existence of God") seem to do is show the total near lack of mental and logical sanity of the questioner. From his side the questioner demands OSE for every word stated by any of his opponents, for every scientific find, for logical conclusions, for every Scientific Theory, for any format of support and reason, but in stark contrast he himself hides behind futile attempts to try to skip the FACT that he has not one single iota of OSE for his own point of view that is entirely based on unsupported religious claims and suggestions.

Understand me well : I am a great proponent of the human right to believe whatever one likes to believe. But that right does not allow the believer to demand OSE for anything stated by people with other beliefs and/or view point, while at the same time providing some mysterious and automatic right to the questioner to skip that same demand for his or her own belief or point of view.

Let's face it clearly and fairly : there never was - and there never will - be even the slightest format of OSE for the basics of any religion. Religion is based on assumptions, on (beyond any questioning) dogma, on BELIEF and nothing else.
To the theist that belief may feel as factual proof, but that is wrong : not by the slightest of margins there is any OSE for what he/she believes.

The essence of science is on explanations for observations, and on providing a basis for that by thesis that are tested and retested frequently by peer review and any other means, to always make sure that explanations are proven correct, also by new findings.
This in stark contrast to religious dogmas that are beyond any discussion. Always.

So unless creationists can come up with some actual OSE for their religious claims themselves, please feel free to suggest anything you like, but expect strong opposition from the scientific corner of the active member spectrum.

:>)

.

[Credendovidis]

Latest anti-evolution proze in the ICR bulletin "Acts and Facts" :

Since 2004, nearly 12,000 pastors throughout the U.S. have signed a statement rejecting the biblical doctrine of creation. Called "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science," it states:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible--the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Many of these same 12,000 ministers devote one weekend every February to exalt the person and work of Charles Darwin, whose birthday falls on February 12. The next "Evolution Weekend" will be held February 13-15, 2009. You can be sure that this, the celebration of Darwin's 200th birthday, will be the grandest evolution party ever.

A rather livid ICR comment. But great information : nearly 12,000 pastors throughout the U.S. with an open mind ! Spread the word !

And don't forget to reserve February 13-15, 2009 in your diary for the "Evolution Weekend".

:>)

.

[De Maria]

Are knots intelligently designed?

Yes.
Different types of knots

They are more complex than a straight line.

Correct. Knots are tied for a purpose and are designed with several purposes in mind.

Does god tangle the christmas lights or is this complexity come from the random motions of the wire?

A tangle is proof that disorder can result from order.

What about hurricanes does god form every hurricane that kills thousands of people because they are more complex than a standard storm.

A hurricane is itself ordered. It is one type of order changing into another.

The results of the hurricane are proof that disorder sometimes results from order.

What about waves they are more complex?

Yes.

Does god form the waves that killed hundreds of thousands of people?

Yes. God giveth and God taketh away.

If this is your god you worship the devil.

There you have it. You have just explained why you refuse to believe in God. It is an act of will. No matter what evidence is presented, you refuse to accept the evidence that God exists and subsitute your unsupported preference.

But the truth is true whether you believe it or not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

There you have it. You have just explained why you refuse to believe in God. It is an act of will.

Of course it is; in the same fashion that belief in a god is an act of will - what else could it be?

But the truth is true whether you believe it or not.

I see that you understand that part - well done.

[Credendovidis]

But the truth is true whether you believe it or not.

I see that you understand that part - well done.

The truth is - of course - always true.
The problem here is : what IS the truth ?
That what you have to believe, because there is no OSE for it at all?
Or that what you have some OSE proof for, how limited that support may be...

??

:>)

.

[michealb]

Correct. Knots are tied for a purpose and are designed with several purposes in mind.

A tangle is proof that disorder can result from order.

A hurricane is itself ordered. It is one type of order changing into another.

The results of the hurricane are proof that disorder sometimes results from order.

It's interesting how you use the word disorder rather than the word complexity. See you say "A tangle is proof that disorder can result from order." I see "A tangle is proof that complexity can result from simplicity." I think they are both correct it all depends on your view point. If the tangle is useful then it suddenly become order out of disorder.

Yes. God giveth and God taketh away.

I'll remember that when I give someone something and tell them they have free will to do with it what they want. I gave it to them so I can take it away. What great wisdom to live by.

There you have it. You have just explained why you refuse to believe in God. It is an act of will. No matter what evidence is presented, you refuse to accept the evidence that God exists and subsitute your unsupported preference. But the truth is true whether you believe it or not.

Give me one example of proof of god doing something anything. You can't because your religion is faith. It always has been always will be. Its only you who can't accept this. Every answer that has ever been found has been a natural answer. The super natural by definition has no proof.

[De Maria]

It's interesting how you use the word disorder rather than the word complexity. See you say "A tangle is proof that disorder can result from order." I see "A tangle is proof that complexity can result from simplicity." I think they are both correct it all depends on your view point. If the tangle is useful then it suddenly become order out of disorder.

You have proved me right. You say, "if the tangle is useful". That leaves the question, "to whom?" Obviously, an intelligence can take advantage of a disorder whether it is complex or not. And that proves that intelligence can bring order from disorder. What was formerly disorder is now order.

I think what you are trying to prove is that order can come from disorder. In so doing, you have misused the term "complex".

Complex means complicated. Entailing many details which may be hard to understand, hard to do or both.

But complex is often used to mean confused.

A knot is complex. It is hard to duplicate because it is follow and the purpose or value of its twists and turns are hard to understand But it is not confused.

A tangle is confuse. It is impossible to duplicate because it has no purpose and may indeed have no value. In fact, they are usually a detriment.

However, at times, intelligent beings can even bring desired results from tangles.

I'll remember that when I give someone something and tell them they have free will to do with it what they want. I gave it to them so I can take it away. What great wisdom to live by.

That is where faiith comes in. I have faith that everything God does is for my good.

Give me one example of proof of god doing something anything. You can't because your religion is faith. It always has been always will be. Its only you who can't accept this. Every answer that has ever been found has been a natural answer. The super natural by definition has no proof.

Sure, its faith. The evidence which science provides has led me to believe that God made the universe and gave us life.

On the other hand, that same evidence seems to have led you to believe that unintelligent, inanimate matter can give life.

I have faith in God.

You have faith in unintelligent, inanimatel matter.

Whose faith is more reasonable? I believe mine is.

Sincerely,

De Maria