Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by Shirina Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:38 pm

The only possible answer that would stand up to any scrutiny is instant creation and not necessarily of all things at once.

This premise is based on a lack of knowledge, not the presence of it.

by Guest Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:35 pm

Shirina wrote:

The only possible answer that would stand up to any scrutiny is instant creation and not necessarily of all things at once.
This premise is based on a lack of knowledge, not the presence of it.

As is inter-species/genus macro-evolution.

by Shirina Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:46 am

As is inter-species/genus macro-evolution.

As well as magic.

by Guest Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:51 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
As is inter-species/genus macro-evolution.

Shirina wrote:
As well as magic.

You’ve equated “inter-species/genus macro-evolution” with “magic.” I agree. Asserting that the multitude of past and present species of life, so numerous that even the species existent today have yet to be fully enumerated, are the result of inter-species/genus macro-evolution is akin to asserting that magic is real. In fact, I’ll go so far as to posit that if inter-species/genus macro-evolution is real, then magic is also real.

P.S. And I “ain’t mad atcha!”

by polyglide Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:42 am

Just another little thing to throw into the hat.

We have a sweet little wren, whose nest is such that man cannot replicate,
it lays eggs from which its young hatch and if taken away on fledging and mated to one of it,s kind, which also had been taken on fledging and put into isolation would build an exactly the same nest and lay exactly the same eggs.

This suggests to me that there is only one explanation that being, that the wren was created with all the abilities it required, there is no rational explanation, or evidence to show, that their was any intermediatory stage or stages that must have occured had evolution had any part to play.

And there are millions of other examples of a similar nature.

If you consider all things we have at our disposal, there is only one conclusion that fits the bill.

There must be an entity, for want of another word, or entities, that are far beyond our present understanding and are probably present throughout the universe, with powers which are also beyond our understanding.

When one is humble enough to accept this then magic or any other claims become of no relevance.

I believe there are both good and bad entities and just hope the former wins the day in the name of the God I believe in.

by blueturando Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:14 pm

There must be an entity, for want of another word, or entities, that are far beyond our present understanding and are probably present throughout the universe, with powers which are also beyond our understanding.

When one is humble enough to accept this then magic or any other claims become of no relevance.

I believe there are both good and bad entities and just hope the former wins the day in the name of the God I believe in..

Polyglide....What you have is blind faith. Faith in a particular God or religion you have be taught. It's believable because you want it to be, not because it's correct or that there is any truth to it. You mentioned in an earlier post that humans are said to only use 10%of our brains....Can it then be that we are not intelligent enough or advanced enough to know for sure any or all of the answers? So why do people base their whole lives around guesswork and blind faith

by Guest Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:27 am

blueturando wrote:

There must be an entity, for want of another word, or entities, that are far beyond our present understanding and are probably present throughout the universe, with powers which are also beyond our understanding.

When one is humble enough to accept this then magic or any other claims become of no relevance.

I believe there are both good and bad entities and just hope the former wins the day in the name of the God I believe in.
Polyglide....What you have is blind faith. Faith in a particular God or religion you have be taught. It's believable because you want it to be, not because it's correct or that there is any truth to it.

You have offered no evidence of your assertions regarding Polygilde’s faith.

blueturando wrote:
Can it then be that we are not intelligent enough or advanced enough to know for sure any or all of the answers?

Existence exploded into existence from nonexistence. I’ve three questions for you regarding this.

When did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?
Where did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?
How did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

Perhaps you’ve three answers to these three questions?

blueturando wrote:
So why do people base their whole lives around guesswork and blind faith

Good question. Why do you base your whole lives around guesswork and blind faith insofar as the when, where, and how of Big Bang is concerned??

By the way, hypotheses are guesses.

by blueturando Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:57 pm

Rock a scientific theory is just that....a theory of what might have been and why. It's still only a theory and is not then presented as fact, unlike religion.

Existence exploded into existence from nonexistence. I’ve three questions for you regarding this.

1.When did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

2.Where did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

3.How did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

No I don't Rock and nor do you and anyone else on this planet. This is what I said in my previous post

by polyglide Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:11 pm

I am afraid you have lost the plot.

My opinions and belief are based on the best possible EVIDENCE and not on conjecture.

No one has replied regarding the ability of a human to grow eyes at the back of the head or wings and for a very good reason, they could not, choose how long they had to do so and if evolution was possible in the manner Darwin stated then they could easily do so.

Every living thing be it animal or plant life is programmed to behave in a certain manner any deviation results in it,s demise, you can have man made changes by selective breeding etc; but if the results were left alone they would revert to the original.

This alone, along with all the other interdependancies involved in our world should be proof enough that intelligence of one kind or another was involved in creation.

Why on earth would a butterfly have a system of reproduction that we could never realy understand ? and to be realistic, what are the chances of this coming about by chance ? the answer of course in none.

We cannot comprehend the size of the universe, but anyone who thinks we are the only life form within and that we are the most intelligent needs the help of phychiatrist and fast.

There is also the point that there is evidence on earth that there has possibly been far more intelligent mankind previously but were wiped out for reasons not known to anyone who has not read the bible.

Once one is humble enough and considers the facts along with all the pitfalls and obvious discrepancies involved in the evolution theory then there is only one conclusion that one can come to based on all that we have at our disposal and leaving religion out of it and that is creation is the only possibility.

This is not blind faith but a result after considering all the opinions and theories available, the fact that I call the creator GOD is a matter of faith in that he {I use the word he for lack of another] I feel has only our best interests at heart and will only suffer eventually through our own arrogance and ignorrance.

Kind regards to all.

by Guest Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:05 pm

You said this:

blueturando wrote:
Polyglide....What you have is blind faith. Faith in a particular God or religion you have be taught. It's believable because you want it to be, not because it's correct or that there is any truth to it.

In direct response to what you said, I said this:

RockOnBrother wrote:
You have offered no evidence of your assertions regarding Polygilde’s faith.

You said this:

blueturando wrote:
Can it then be that we are not intelligent enough or advanced enough to know for sure any or all of the answers?

In direct response to what you said, I said this:

RockOnBrother wrote:
Existence exploded into existence from nonexistence. I’ve three questions for you regarding this.

When did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?
Where did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?
How did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

Perhaps you’ve three answers to these three questions?

You said this:

blueturando wrote:
So why do people base their whole lives around guesswork and blind faith

In direct response to what you said, I said this:

RockOnBrother wrote:
Good question. Why do you base your whole lives around guesswork and blind faith insofar as the when, where, and how of Big Bang is concerned??

By the way, hypotheses are guesses.

Now, in your current post, you’ve said this:

blueturando wrote:

Existence exploded into existence from nonexistence. I’ve three questions for you regarding this.

1.When did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

2.Where did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

3.How did existence explode into existence from nonexistence?

No I don't Rock and nor do you and anyone else on this planet. This is what I said in my previous post

Since you cannot answer either of the three questions, I’ve another question

Why do you practice blind faith by believing in something about which you cannot answer basic questions as to the “when”, “where”, and “how” of what you believe?

If by some chance you don’t believe Big Bang, I’ve a few questions about your belief in its alternate, Steady State.

by blueturando Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:29 pm

Im sorry Rock....you have lost me here mate, I'm not sure what you are going on about?....I will repeat what I said and please take it in

Can it then be that we are not intelligent enough or advanced enough to know for sure any or all of the answers? So why do people base their whole lives around guesswork and blind faith.

Polyglide

My opinions and belief are based on the best possible EVIDENCE and not on conjecture

Again, this is just another theory, none of which is provable

by Shirina Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:52 pm

Why do you practice blind faith by believing in something about which you cannot answer basic questions as to the “when”, “where”, and “how” of what you believe?

This question has an easy answer.

During the 1400s, a French village in the Alps was threatened by a glacier; the villagers then sent a group of priests to the edge of the glacier. There, the priests prayed, waved their arms, burned some incense, and hammered a big iron cross into the ice. The reason is because they believed the glacier was inhabited by demons, and it was demonic evil that caused the glacier to creep inexorably toward their village.

What nonsense, right? Well, there are thousands of anecdotes like this throughout history. With all of our 21st Century knowledge, even devout Christians would have reason to doubt that glaciers move because of demonic forces. And therein lies the point: As our knowledge of the universe increases, religiosity decreases. Note, I didn't say belief decreases, only the religiosity of those beliefs. Only the tiniest fraction of true believers today would consider a naturalistic explanation for glacial movement as a threat to their belief in God. However, say that to one of those 15th Century Catholics and you'd find yourself tied to a pole with flames licking at your ankles and one last chance to repent.

Thus we Humans have been ascribing supernatural explanations to natural events since the dawn of our species. Over time, however, those supernatural and religious explanations have fallen away one by one as we began to understand the workings of our planet, our solar system, and our universe. The veil of ignorance was lifted away, one might say, and even religion has had to stand aside in the face of scientific knowledge. The Catholics, the same faith that once thought glaciers were powered by demons have now acknowledged evolution.

Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis; Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis; Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.

In addition, it was once heresy to believe life existed on other planets as this ran contrary to religious beliefs that placed humans at the pinnacle of creation. One more famous case is that of Giordano Bruno:

His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings.[1] He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.

Yet today:

Pope Benedict XVI's official astronomer, Father Jose Funes said that the possibility of life on other planets could not be ignored.

And this just keeps happening, religion giving way to science, as it has been happening for thousands of years.

Hence the bottom line: Religion is faith-based, and faith often ignores the facts. To be perfectly blunt, faith, in contravention of factual evidence, keeps people ignorant and superstitious. Time and time again religion has lost ground as science rushes in to fill those gaps in our knowledge where God and Faith once resided.

Therefore, if I am asked to place my money on which side, faith or science, will ultimately be proven correct, the smart money is on science. There is no reason ... NO reason ... to expect religion, faith, or the supernatural to be correct this ONE time when they have consistently failed in all previous attempts to become an accepted explanation. In other words, faith and religion has the dubious honor of having maintained a 100% failure rate when it comes to explaining the physical world in which we live.

After all, if religion is based on faith, why do believers work so hard in using evolution and the Big Bang to prove their faith is correct? Is it not enough to simply believe? Let science explain our universe and keep faith, God, and religion in the realm of spirituality. When science and religion intermix, it's like matter and anti-matter rubbing shoulders.

So, while I may not understand all the intricacies of the Big Bang and evolution, I'm going to place a safe bet and say that religion and faith will fall away on these topics just as they have in every other faith vs. science contest that has ever taken place.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

by Guest Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:57 pm

blueturando wrote:
Im sorry Rock....you have lost me here mate, I'm not sure what you are going on about?....I will repeat what I said and please take it in

Can it then be that we are not intelligent enough or advanced enough to know for sure any or all of the answers? So why do people base their whole lives around guesswork and blind faith.

Thank you for pointing out your confusion; feedback allows “the confuser”, in this case, me, to clear things up.

You’ve coupled “not intelligent enough” to “blind faith.” I’m pointing out the fact that all who believe that existence exists, in other words, all who believe in the existence of existence, do so in blind faith. That includes every person who chooses to believe that God does not exist.

I hope that’s a bit clearer. I look forward to discussing this with you.

by Guest Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:17 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Why do you practice blind faith by believing in something about which you cannot answer basic questions as to the “when”, “where”, and “how” of what you believe?

Shirina wrote:
This question has an easy answer.

So, while I may not understand all the intricacies of the Big Bang…

You have not answered my question. I assume that (1) you believe in the existence of existence, and (2) you believe in Big Bang as the source of existence. If you cannot answer basic questions about the “when”, “where”, and “how” of Big Bang, then belief in Big Bang is blind faith; thus, the question remains, why do you practice blind faith by believing in something about which you cannot answer basic questions as to the “when”, “where”, and “how” of what you believe?

For information, (1) I’m not Roman Catholic, and (2) I pay no attention to edicts of popes.

by Shirina Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:26 pm

You have not answered my question.

Actually, I have.

then belief in Big Bang is blind faith

It may be faith, but it's not blind faith. There is 100,000 years of historical precedent to strengthen my faith that science will ultimately be proven correct. Can you give me just one - just one - example that I can read in a scientific journal or textbook that accepts magic and the supernatural as a proven cause for any naturalistic event? For instance, can you show me one instance where there is factual evidence to support the theory that lightning is caused by the displeasure of a god ... ANY god? Can you provide me with any other example of magic being the cause of something being created? Is there anything in your household, for instance, that just "showed up" inexplicably?

The fact is ... the FACT is ... that religion and faith in magic, the supernatural, gods, or whatever has NEVER been shown to be the correct - or even the most likely - explanation for ANYTHING. If this were not true, then we would not be seeing the rise of secularism all over the Western world. Even atheists in America are finally waking up, mainly due to the recent push in evangelism and fundamentalism here in the US.

For information, (1) I’m not Roman Catholic, and (2) I pay no attention to edicts of popes.

Be that as it may, it doesn't take away from the fact that even the most conservative of religions have had to change their fundamental beliefs in the face of new scientific knowledge -as it has been doing for thousands of years. Even if you're not "religious," Rock, your own personal beliefs should not be immune to science. If you wish to bet on a horse that hasn't won a race in 100,000 years, that is, of course, your choice. Believing that a God magically created the universe is the 21st Century equivalent of believing a glacier can be stopped by exorcising it of demons.

by bobby Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:45 pm

polyglide wrote: No one has replied regarding the ability of a human to grow eyes at the back of the head or wings and for a very good reason, they could not, choose how long they had to do so and if evolution was possible in the manner Darwin stated then they could easily do so.

A Human being is a predator, if you look at the vast majority of predators, they have certain things in common, one is the ability to capture their prey, another is the ability to eat their prey, and another is the ability to see their prey whilst in the process of hunting it. There is absolutely no reason as to why a predatory creature should have eyes anywhere than at the front or towards the front of their head. it’s the prey animals that need rear vision as its them that has to run in the opposite direction we predators are coming from.

Predators where not invented or created or evolved into front looking animals, but it soon became a necessity in order to feed, two non front looking predators = two hungry predators, so didn’t do too well in the nooky stakes as it was the ones with the better ability to hunt wot done all the bonking, then in turn the procreating, and if the ones doing the bonking have forward looking eyes, it follows that their offspring will have the same or similar. Its called natural selection, nothing to do with any blueprint drawn up by God. But purely as Mr Darwin said, the survival of the fittest.

That is why we haven’t got eyes anywhere other than at the front of our head, because we are the apex Predator.

On the other hand, the vast majority of prey animals have eyes all over the place, at the side of their heads or on top of their heads, even eyes that can look two ways at once. Hence the ones that use their vision to the best advantage live and breed more of the same, those too busy reading the animal times get killed and eaten by the forward looking predators, so their genes do not get passed on. Its all very simple really, albeit a bit long winded.

Another point as to why man isn't changing noticably anymore, is that we have now got the ability to change our surroundings to suit us, so have lost the need to evolve into anything else other than what we are.

One more point, you say that animals are blueprinted and can not change. What then of the bull Shark. A fish that aparently like all others lives in the sea. The bull shark now has the ability to spend as much time as it likes in fresh water, hence the ever increasing attacks on humans in river and other fresh waters. Some animals are still evolving.

by Shirina Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:08 pm

Actually, only insects and a few rare species of fish have eyes anywhere but on the front or sides of their heads, and Bobby is quite correct: Predators have eyes close together and to the front. This allows for stereoscopic vision which gives depth perception. Depth perception is what allows us to judge distance to the target. Without it, we could not have thrown a spear or rock accurately, and even today, shooting a gun relies heavily on stereoscopic vision. Go outside, close one eye, and try to hit something with a rock. You'll see what I mean. For animals, judging distance is important because this is how cats know how far to jump, how far up or down a prey animal is, and it allows other animals to gauge how far and how fast they have to run. A lot of animals, especially super-fast animals such as Cheetahs expend a lot of energy in speed bursts, so that energy has to count.

However, even prey animals do not have eyes all over the place. They have eyes on the sides of their heads because it gives them a wider field of view. But why not a 360 field of view? Well, without actually looking down at your feet to see which way they're pointing, you would have no sensation of which way is "front" and which way is "back." Predator or prey, you could easily run in the wrong direction. You could even fall flat on your face as you tug your body in the opposite direction of your momentum. In addition, having a 360 field of view would create "information overload" or actual vertigo when moving at running speeds. While I suppose the brain could eventually adapt, it would be exceedingly difficult to monitor the prey chasing you from behind while simultaneously monitoring the terrain in front of you. That ability would require a rather sophisticated brain and a biologically state-of-the-art nervous system; a brain THAT sophisticated is liable be sentient.

I also think that part of the evolutionary process - on a macro level - "knows" it cannot make prey animals TOO perfect or the predators would all die out, and that would be a disaster for the ecosystem. Imagine if there were no predators, allowing omnivores to strip the earth of grass and small bushes. We'd end up with a desert planet in a few hundred years. I'm not suggesting that evolution is itself a sentient being making active decisions, but evolution has created a very delicate balance between predator and prey. Too many predators or too much prey and both can "exist" themselves into extinction.

So while it is interesting academically to ask why animals didn't evolve this or that attack or defense mechanism, I believe it is to keep that delicate balance in place.

by Guest Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:46 pm

Shirina wrote:

You have not answered my question.
Actually, I have.

Not yet.

Shirina wrote:

then belief in Big Bang is blind faith
It may be faith, but it's not blind faith.

Yes it is. You’ve neither seen personally nor seen reliable reports as to the “when”, “where”, and “how” of Big bang, yet you nonetheless believe; thus, your belief in Bing Bang is without “sight.” That’s blind faith.

Shirina wrote:
There is 100,000 years of historical precedent to strengthen my faith that science will ultimately be proven correct.

Science cannot be proven “correct”; science is an investigative process whereby truth is discovered, and hypotheses are proven either correct or incorrect. Ultimately, the only thing that will be “proven correct”, because it is the only thing which can be “proven correct”, will be Truth.

Shirina wrote:
Can you give me just one - just one - example that I can read in a scientific journal or textbook that accepts magic and the supernatural as a proven cause for any naturalistic event?

No. Moreover, as I’ve not mentioned magic except in response to your numerous mentions of magic, that’s a moot question. In fact, I shared with you and others that (1) several friends and I were trained by AGVA magicians while in junior high school, (2) as a result of that training, I can perform a few routines, (3) also as a result of that training, I can “spy out” many other conjurers’ routines, (4) I can often guess at the mechanics of routines that I can’t “spy out”, and (5) even routines I can’t “spy out” or “guess at” I know to be matters of masterful application of illusionist skills.

Shirina wrote:
For instance, can you show me one instance where there is factual evidence to support the theory that lightning is caused by the displeasure of a god ... ANY god? Can you provide me with any other example of magic being the cause of something being created? Is there anything in your household, for instance, that just "showed up" inexplicably?

No and no. See above, and remember that I still possess sufficient skills to perform a few “magic” routines.

by Shirina Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:14 am

That’s blind faith.

No ... it's not. Blind faith is a belief in something without any tangible reason to believe it. Blind faith would be like believing I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow so I put a down payment on a million dollar yacht. If you believe in something "just because," then it's blind faith.

Faith in science is usually not blind. For instance, I have faith that when I turn on a light switch, the light will come on. It may not. There could be a power failure, the switch might be broken, or the bulb could be burned out. But I have faith that the light will work because the scientific principles behind a light switch are sound. I, myself, could not explain why lights work ... but they do and so I have faith that the light on my ceiling will turn on when I flick the switch 99.9% of the time. My lack of knowledge about electricity does not negate the fact that my faith in electricity is justified; I don't have to understand it completely for the light to work.

Science cannot be proven “correct”

Of course it can. All of the many scientific principles that allows a functional computer have been proven correct. If they were NOT correct, then your computer wouldn't work, or it would work only some of the time. In that sense, science and Truth are synonymous.

Moreover, as I’ve not mentioned magic except in response to your numerous mentions of magic

Magic doesn't just mean pulling rabbits out of a hat. Magic, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, says, "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

So if there is a creator being out there with the power to simply "speak" a universe into existence, I think that qualifies as magic.

by polyglide Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:24 pm

I have never heard such tripe in all my life.

Of course different species have eyes that enable them to survive and they are all programmed as is the rest of their make up to do so.

All creatures on earth are made to follow their own manner of life, you only have to consider the vast variety involved , each one is equiped with that necessary to ensure the survival of the species even though many are the prey of preditors.

Now who in their right mind would think that anything would evolve to become the prey of others ? it does not make any sense.

There is of course the quesion from where did everything originate that made creation possible.

You could consider this in the same manner as a creature say, an ant, wondering where that thing dressed in jungle gear came from that just stepped on a hundred of my mates. We know the answer, because to us it is no problem but it would be far far beyond the understanding of the ant.
Although there would be no mystery or magic or anything else involved
it would be easily explained just as creation could be were the creator willing to explain all things to us and that is where faith comes in, the answer I feel if we ever find out will be far less magical than we think.

by blueturando Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:58 pm

There is of course the quesion from where did everything originate that made creation possible

And the answer is Polyglide......You don't know...I don't know, Rock doesn't know, Shirina doesn't know...and nor does anyone else on this planet. Science will investigate to try and find answers and then prove or disprove those theories.
Religion has made up stories, but has no proof to back anything up at all. People can believe there is a creator, but can never say for sure that there is one....unless you wish to prove it to me

by Shirina Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:29 pm

Now who in their right mind would think that anything would evolve to become the prey of others ?

Apparently some did or else we'd have a world full of very hungry predators.

by blueturando Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:04 pm

Shirina....The theory is that Natural selection took over after the dinasours were virtually wiped out by a large meteor. There wasn't enough meat to go round to feed the larger creatures, so they died out....... only the smaller ones and animals that converted to eating vegetation as well as meat survived.......Evolution at full throttle I think

by Scarecrow Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:52 pm

A Trillion Galaxies – but as far as physicists know, only ours can support life

Two American astrophysicists concluded about a year ago that rare indeed is the galaxy that has the right number of this special kind white dwarf binary pair in the right location, occurring at the right time, so that life can exist today. The universe contains a trillion galaxies. But ours may be the only one that has the necessary conditions for life to exist.

The right star is needed. We can’t have a star any bigger than our Sun. The bigger the star, the more rapidly and erratically it burns its fuel. Our Sun is just small enough to keep a stable enough flame for a sufficient period of time to make life possible. If it were any bigger, we couldn’t have life on planet Earth. If it were any smaller, we’d be in trouble, too.

Smaller stars are even more stable than our star, the Sun, but they don’t burn as hot. In order to keep our planet at the right temperature necessary to sustain life, we’d have to bring the planet closer to the star.

Tidal Forces

The physicists in the audience realize that when you bring a planet closer to its star, the tidal interaction between the star and the planet goes up to the inverse fourth power to the distance separating them. For those of you who are not physicists, that means that all you have to do is bring that planet ever so much closer to the star, and the tidal forces could be strong enough to break the rotational period.

That’s what happened to Mercury and Venus. Those planets are too close to the Sun; so close that their rotational periods have been broken, from several hours to several months.

Earth is just barely far enough away to avoid that breaking. We have a rotation period of once every 24 hours. If we wait much longer, it will be every 26 or 28 hours, because the Earth’s rotation rate is slowing down.

Going back in history, we can measure the time when the Earth was rotating every 20 hours. When the Earth was rotating once every 20 hours, human life was not possible. If it rotates once every 28 hours, human life will not be possible. It can only happen at 24 hours.

Speed of Earth’s Rotation

If the planet rotates too quickly, you get too many tornadoes and hurricanes. If it rotates too slowly, it gets too cold at night and too hot during the day. We don’t want it to be 170 degrees during the day, nor do we want it to be below –100 at night, because that’s not ideal for life.

We don’t want lots of hurricanes and tornadoes, either. What we currently have is an ideal situation, and God plays this. He created us here at the ideal time.

We need the right Earth. If the Earth is too massive, it retains a bunch of gases such as Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen and Helium in its atmosphere. These gases are not acceptable for life, at least, not for advanced life. But if it’s not massive enough, it won’t retain water. For life to exist on planet Earth, we need a huge amount of water, but we don’t need a lot of ammonia and methane.

Remember high school chemistry? Methane’s molecular weight 16, ammonia’s molecular weight 17, water’s molecular weight is 18. God so designed planet Earth that we keep lots of the 18, but we don’t keep any of the 16 or the 17. The incredible fine-tuning of the physical characteristics of Earth is necessary for that.

Jupiter Necessary, too

We even have to have the right Jupiter. We wrote about this in our Facts and Faith newsletter a few issues back, but it was also discovered by American astrophysicists just this past year. Unless you have a very massive planet like Jupiter, five times more distant from the star than the planet that has life, life will not exist on that planet.

It takes a super massive planet like Jupiter, located where it is, to act as a shield, guarding the Earth from comic collisions. We don’t want a comet colliding with Earth every week. Thanks to Jupiter, that doesn’t happen.

What these astrophysicists discovered in their models of planetary formation was that it’s a very rare star system indeed that produces a planet as massive as Jupiter, in the right location, to act as such a shield.

We Even Need the Right Moon

The Earth’s moon system is that of a small planet being orbited by a huge, single moon. That huge, single moon has the effect of stabilizing the rotation axis of planet Earth to 23½ degrees. That’s the ideal tilt for life on planet Earth.

The axis on planet Mars moves through a tilt from zero to 60 degrees and flips back and forth. If that were to happen on Earth, life would be impossible. Thanks to the Moon, it’s held stable at 23 ½ degrees.

Just as with the universe, in the case of the solar system, we can attach numbers to these. In this case, I’ve chosen to be extremely conservative in my estimates. I would feel justified in sticking a few zeros between the decimal point and the one. I would feel justified in making this 20 percent, 10 percent, for example, and on down the line.

We Even Need the Right Number of Earthquakes

I’ve got so many characteristics here, and I let the Californians know that you have to have the right number of earthquakes. Not too many, not too few, or life is not possible. I share them with my wife, who doesn’t like earthquakes, but I just tell her that when you feel a good jolt, that’s when you have to thank God for his perfect providence.

At Least 41 Fine-Tuned Characteristics, to have One Planet that Supports Life

The bottom line to all of this is that we have 41 characteristics of the solar system that must be fine-tuned for life to exist. But even if the universe contains as many planets as it does stars, which is a gross overestimate in my opinion, that still leaves us with less than one chance in a billion trillion that you’d find even one planet in the entire universe with the capacity for supporting life.

This tells us that we’re wasting valuable taxpayer money looking for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Worse than that, we’re wasting valuable telescope time. In the words of William Proxmyer, “It would be far wiser looking for intelligent life in Washington than looking for it in other galaxies.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/

by Shirina Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:40 am

The above article is a close-minded view, and ridiculously premature. It's the equivalent of a baby in a playpen looking about and claiming no other life exists because none can be found amid his toys and blankets. Imagine, then, if this baby never bothered looking beyond his playpen, not even into the room in which the playpen sits, simply because no other humans presented themselves immediately in his tiny, tiny corner of the world.

I'm familiar with this argument as it is popular with Creationists. It's also a fallacious argument since basing the requirements for life only on ourselves and the animals that surround us fails to take into account other evolutionary avenues. We only have 9 planets ... only 9 ... out of the entire infinite cosmos upon which to base this specious conclusion. What's worse, only earth contains life, meaning we have just ONE planet upon which to base the requirements of life. That's like going to China, finding one person with blond hair, and concluding that no one else, anywhere, also has blond hair.

Now, why is this argument invalid? Well it's more than just what I've already written. The problem here is that it only argues one side of the equation. That alone makes the argument null and void.

Here's what I mean: Let's say you walk into a casino to play the quarter slot machines, and the odds of winning the jackpot is a trillion to one. Well, first of all, there is always the possibility of getting lucky. You might hit the jackpot on your first attempt. However, the true odds of something happening must have two sides of the equation. You need the probability of x occurring, and you need the number of chances allowed to cause x to occur. It's this latter part that this argument ignores.

So, while odds of a trillion to one seem abysmally low, that all changes if you walk into that casino with a trillion quarters. Now the odds of hitting the jackpot is a trillion divided by a trillion ... or 1. This means with a trillion attempts, it becomes a mathematical certainty that you will hit the jackpot. What was once improbable now becomes certain. If you have 2 trillion quarters, the odds of multiple jackpots begins to rise quite rapidly.

Therefore, even if the odds of another earth, including the right star, tidal forces, Jupiter, etc. is x, if there are x number of chances ... or even x+1 or x+2 (and so on), the odds are in our favor that more than one earth-like planet exists.

The issue here is that Creationists using this argument can offer up no viable number that addresses x. In other words, they have no idea how many chances the universe had in getting it right. Not a clue. I don't have a clue, either. But given the all-but-infinite number of stars in our universe that exist right now (not counting the ones that once existed), the odds are pretty good that earth has happened before, perhaps multiple times, and some of those earths are still around. In fact, I would argue that it is a mathematical certainty that there are other earths.

And who says that a planet has to be identical to earth for life to form? It just has to be in the "Goldilocks Zone" of habitation (based on human requirements) of the particular star said planet orbits. A hotter star would require the planet be further out, a cooler star would require the planet to be further in (both relative to earth). Essentially, it needs to be warm enough to contain liquid water, but to suggest that life cannot exist without an atmosphere of oxygen, nitrogen, and argon is being a bit shortsighted.

We can even move into highly speculative possibilities such as one alien "earth" evolving a species that has surpassed humanity in terms of technology (at least), and perhaps intelligence, as well. That species, in order to maintain itself, may have moved out into the cosmos by terraforming otherwise inhospitable worlds to make them more earth-like. As such, there could be hundreds of "artificial" earths out there, terraformed by a highly advanced race. It is mere assumption that all life out there evolved on the planet where it currently resides.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:59 am

Quote Shirina

And who says that a planet has to be identical to earth for life to form? It just has to be in the "Goldilocks Zone" of habitation (based on human requirements) of the particular star said planet orbits. A hotter star would require the planet be further out, a cooler star would require the planet to be further in (both relative to earth). Essentially, it needs to be warm enough to contain liquid water, but to suggest that life cannot exist without an atmosphere of oxygen, nitrogen, and argon is being a bit shortsighted.

Agreed.

And religions, including the Bible, tell us that quite plainly that there is life other than we know it. Angels etc. and 'life' of some type after death.

I'm not trying to bring religion into this religious thread:) but you have to believe either there is no other life anywhere - as hypothesised - or accept that there is life somewhere, perhaps beyond our understanding.

You can't say there is no other life anywhere in one breath and then that there is life after death, angels etc.

I firmly believe that 'out there' life exists. Perhaps even 'on earth' in forms we are not yet able to 'see'.

My friend from Alpha Centauri galaxy proves that;)

But then - what do I know.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:48 pm

C.S.Lewis wrote a trilogy of 'space' books.

Out of the Silent Planet (Earth which has been isolated from the rest of the galaxy by a barrier to prevent is contacting other creatures) and man's break through the barrier and reaction to other creatures, of 'Gods' creation. The Sorn and others.

Perelandra. What might have happened if Eve had resisted the serpent in Eden. Contains arguments 'debating' good and evil. Hard going but interesting.

That Hideous Strength. Hegel and Nihilism threatening human values as expressed in the legends of King Arthur.

Descriptions given are brief, and probably inadequate. Good reading.

by polyglide Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:17 pm

There are some very good fairy stories on which varying opinions are based regarding the how and from where everything originated.

But I cannot understand how anyone can even consider that a far greater intelligence than ours was not involved.

Some people tend to ignore the obvious when evolution is mentioned.

Man has reached the pinacle and does not need to evolve further, this suggests that everything that evolved was aware of what it wanted and to what extent it wished to go.

In that case the prey of other creatures must have been very thick to evolve as fodder.

Talking of fodder brings up another subject.

There are identical berries, one is lethal the other eccential food for a creature, how did the creature diffrinciate between the two ?.

The blackbird depends mainly on worms to raise the young as do other birds, the method the blackbird uses to get the worm is by dancing and attrackting the worm out of the ground.

What did the blackbird do before it had dancing lessons and who taught it to tango?.

There are just too many unexplained such examples in nature that makes the evolution theory less probable than Santa starting everything off by coming down the chimney with eveything in his little bag. /.

by Shirina Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:44 pm

Man has reached the pinacle and does not need to evolve further, this suggests that everything that evolved was aware of what it wanted and to what extent it wished to go.

Have we? I can think of a thousand ways in which Man needs to evolve.

Physically, there are things like: Being susceptible to a wide variety of bacteria and viruses that can easily kill without medication; could we not evolve a better immune system? That's not to mention the seemingly endless array of diseases that can kill or lay a person low for the rest of his/her life. How about limb regeneration? We can't even regenerate lost teeth. None of our physical abilities are all that good; we are relatively weak and have poor endurance. Our eyesight is poor and tends to get worse with age; it is even worse at night. We have no natural defenses - no fangs, claws, wings, armor, camouflage, etc. The climate window in which we can exist is very small. Humans have no rutting period which is leading to overpopulation.

Then there are the mental and emotional shortcomings: The wide range of incapacitating chemical imbalances such as depression, bi-polar disorder, and sociopathy. The propensity for warfare and aggression against members of our own species. The lack of altruism and the need for reciprocity in most things that we do. The fact that lots of people are intelligent but few people are really smart. Our preoccupation with sex. The Law of Diminishing Returns.

Technology has circumvented some of these problems, but for most of human history, life always teetered on the edge of oblivion since humans are not well-suited to the natural world. Our big brains kept us going as a viable species, and that was our only real advantage. Now, however, all of that technology that has kept us going is now proving to be bad for us either directly (the use of cancer-causing chemicals) or indirectly (a sedentary lifestyle due to technology causing obesity). For most of human history, though, most of the world's population walked a knife's edge between extinction and prosperity; millions were always one blizzard or drought away from starvation, and diseases ran rampant. Some historians believe that the mighty Mongol Horde led by Genghis Khan was brought down by the lowly mosquito, and as recently as 1917, tens of millions died because of a lowly flu virus. I think those of us living in the West sometimes forget that the majority of the world's population, even today, aren't even living as well as a medieval peasant.

I would say that Man has a long way to go before it reaches any sort of pinnacle.

And then there are other factors that can only be explained through evolution. Here's a short list:

1) Male nipples. Seriously? I think that goes to show you that the human body did not begin on this planet fully formed or men wouldn't have them. If we were "created," then our creator must have gotten confused. "Whoops, I meant to put those on women! Oh well, no point in going back and re-doing males ..."

2) Do you know what "goose bumps" were originally for? They were meant to puff up fur in the same way a cat does when it is surprised, scared, or angry. Except we no longer have fur. What we do have, however, is a lot of excessive body hair that is much too thin to offer any sort of protection against the elements. We lost fur a long time ago, long before technology moved most of us indoors.

3) Extrinsic ear muscles which used to allow humans to move their ears independently of their head - like a dog or cat. These muscles still exist, but the majority of humans can no longer access them. A few do have rudimentary control which is why some people can wiggle their ears.

4) Wisdom teeth. Need I say more? Anyone who has ever had them out knows what I'm talking about. They are left-overs from a much earlier hominid species that was primarily a herbivore, requiring an extra set of teeth that could grind plants.

5) Subclavius muscle: This is a muscle that runs between the shoulders and the ribs and would have been helpful if we still walked on all fours. Of course, we don't. Now. Most humans do not have this muscle, but some do, and a few people even have both of them running down both sides of the body (for two sets of limbs).

6) Palmaris muscle. A muscle that runs from wrist to elbow that would have helped us climb and hang. Except we can't access that muscle any more, so surgeons often use it for reconstructive surgery. This muscle is actually missing in 11% of humans, showing that our body is, indeed, still in the process of evolving.

7) Appendix. Another useless organ that once helped us digest a greater quantity of plants. Since we need to consume less food (due to smaller body size) and a change from being an herbivore to an omnivore, we no longer use this organ. My roommate just had hers removed a few months ago.

9)* Coccyx. The tail bone. This is all that's left of a time when we once had tails. Once our ancestors began walking upright, there was no need for it. A very small percentage of humans are still born with small tails even today. Usually the parents opt to surgically remove them from the child shortly after birth.

*I skipped 8 because an 8 and a parenthesis results in the "Cool" emoticon showing up. I'll see if I can fix that in a bit.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It would seem to me, just by examining the human body alone, there is a strong case for evolution. Certainly these vestigial body parts were not included as some sort of joke or as a trick to deceive us into straying from God worship to science worship. All of these parts once had a function, but when the need for them vanished, so too did our access to those parts. I think the evidence for an evolved and evolving body is quite strong.

What did the blackbird do before it had dancing lessons and who taught it to tango?

When I was around 10 or 11, my grandfather used to take me fishing. Part of the ritual was to wait for a nice, big rain, at which point we went out before dawn when we could find worms just lying on the grass, crawling on the sidewalk, and along rocks. Easy pickings. Perhaps blackbirds did this, as well? Blackbirds even now still maintain zones of habitation where there is plenty of rainfall. Perhaps their habitation zone mirrors this from the days when it relied on rain to bring worms to the surface. All it takes is one exceptionally smart blackbird to figure out how to coax a worm out of the ground in order to get the ball rolling, so to speak. Many animals teach their young how to hunt and blackbirds might have done the same in a distant time. Once that ability was firmly embedded in the genetic code, teaching was no longer necessary.

Not knowing something does not qualify as evidence OF something. For instance, not knowing where my car keys are is not evidence that I left them at work. The truest statement I can make is that "I don't know where they are." In the same light, not knowing precisely how a blackbird learned how to tango does not qualify as evidence for a creator. We can only say, "I don't know how they learned that" and see if we can find out. If, based on what we DO know, evidence for a creator is found, then I'm more than willing to entertain it.

Take care, polyglide. Wink

by trevorw2539 Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:09 am

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1) - Page 2 Empty

Re: Evidence for the existence of God
by Shirina Yesterday at 3:44 pm

Man has reached the pinacle and does not need to evolve further, this suggests that everything that evolved was aware of what it wanted and to what extent it wished to go.

Have we? I can think of a thousand ways in which Man needs to evolve.

Good one 'Dr' Shirina. Smile

I had intended to reply to the above, but bow in humble acknowledgement of your superior knowledge and erudition. Embarassed

The fishing and worms bought back fond memories though Laughing

by polyglide Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:54 pm

I did not say that man had reached the pinicle, I was refering to anothers idea.

Man is incapable of changing from man to anything else, he could not grow wings or feathers or change his basic make up, he can of course utilise everything else on earth as no other creature can.

The example given regarding the blackbird is typical of the general replies you receive to a sensible quesion.

The blackbird may have learned and passed on the ability to catch the worm by a series of events etc;

The problem I have with this is there must have been millions of such events for things to end up as they presently are.

No one has explained how a wren learned to build such a complicated nest and how it decided on the colour of the eggs.

This could not possibly have been by trial and error there must have been intelligence involved and if so from where?

There are as I have said previously, far more unanswered quesions than those that can have a POSSIBLE explanation and until all can be answered
in an acceptable manner, everything remains an inigma, in particular for those who think we are the bees knees and have the answer to everything being the most in the dark.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:00 pm

[quote]Now who in their right mind would think that anything would evolve to become the prey of others ? it does not make any sense.[quote]

Wow. This is a statement from someone who does not understand evolution or science or genetics. Every plant and animal on the planet has DNA and that is our strongest evidence for evolution being a fact. The genetic tree can be traced back to a common ancestor.

I don't think humans are the bees knees in the evolutionary sense. For all our knowledge and technology, we are very disrespectful of the other species who share this planet. Unfortunately, irrational religious belief is the cause of most of this disrespect, not only for other species but especially to other humans. The moment you have a belief in a specific religion or god, you have immediately put yourself at odds with anyone who believes differently to you. It's just a slippery slope to discontent, disharmony and war.

by trevorw2539 Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:05 pm

Polyglide Quote.

The problem I have with this is there must have been millions of such events for things to end up as they presently are.

Of course there have been. Just as there has been millions of events that has made you what you are. A culmination of all that your family predecessors have been. A combination of all the different 'genes' that have come together in generation after generation. The colour of your skin, hair, height etc. Your preferences, dislikes.

Some of your behaviour is 'inbred'. As a baby you knew when to suckle, your body knew when to urinate and defecate. Your body has instincts which 'come naturally'.

I happen to accept that there was an unknown creator 'being', but cannot refuse the proof of evolution. I studied the Bible for years and have no problem with evolution.

The wren. Like many other creatures it would start with a simple nest and as its descendants learnt from experience, would have 'improved' the nest to conform with changing conditions over long aeons of time.

Our descendants lived in caves, wooden huts, mudbuilt houses. As we learnt we improved our dwellings to give us more protection etc. Now people live in 'ecological' dwellings. Just because we are more intelligent than wrens doesn't mean they can't 'learn'.

I have learnt to live with my beliefs and leave others to believe as they will. I live as my beliefs teach me. Hopefully that should be enough to persuade people.

Snowyflake has a point. Too many religious people (and I'm not referring to you) are intolerant. If I judge others, I cannot do it by my standards. That is intolerance.

I respect you for your views, to which you are entitled.

Good 'luck' with your search for answers

by polyglide Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:24 pm

Of course every plant and animal has DNA it would be suprising if they did not.

The creator has obviously used the same method of creation for all life.

The fact that all do have different DNA should point to creation rather than evolution, the chances of everything having different DNA, by chance, instead of design, is far too great to consider as a possibility..

by blueturando Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:39 pm

The creator has obviously used the same method of creation for all life.

Despite all the excellent arguments Polyglide, you have decided there 'must' be a creator, no matter what the evidence is....can I ask why and what makes you so sure?

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:06 pm

Next thing you know, people will be querying Genesis.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:19 pm

Of course every plant and animal has DNA it would be suprising if they did not.

Why would God use such convoluted and complex systems to create a living being? God could just create a shell and imbue it with life. Why have brains and organs and biochemical systems? We could just be shells with free will. Why create sex for the purpose of procreation and pleasure when it so obviously displeases him in the myriad of forms it takes especially in humans.

The creator has obviously used the same method of creation for all life.

Where is your evidence for this? And why does the creator seem more plausible to you than evolution which has mountains of evidence to sustain it?

The fact that all do have different DNA should point to creation rather than evolution, the chances of everything having different DNA, by chance, instead of design, is far too great to consider as a possibility..

Why should it point to creation rather than evolution? Evolution stands on its own merits. Small mutations in DNA over long periods of time (and sometimes short periods of time - read The Beak of the Finch about the Galapagos Island finches and how their beaks evolved on the separate islands according to the available food and environmental conditions). When you don't understand something it doesn't do to attribute the gaps in your knowledge to God or any other imaginary being.

As trevor says, good luck in your search for answers. I can recommend several papers, journals and books on evolution if you are interested in improving your understanding of evolution. Take care. Smile

by polyglide Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:02 pm

When I consider the reality of any matter I collate as much evidence as possible and then decide on the basis of that evidence my conclusion

Creation against evolution

Evolution is based on a number of totally improbable events
A little pool of water and lightening striking it and setting off a sequence that defy belief if studied in depth.

There are millions of lightening strikes per year and just as many little pools where are all the creatures that are developing ?

You have a deer whose antlers are renewed every year.

I know, I know over millions of years it thought it ought to have a change,
every year, don't make me laugh.

The prehistoric animals some weighing over a ton just thought they could do with a bit more weight and decided to put a liitle on, don't make

Were evolution to have any real basis for consideration then there would be countless examples of in betwenies and there are none of any consequence that could explain evolution.

How does one explain plant life as opposed to animal life ?/

Were evolution and the little pool and lightening to be the answer then the result would be either plant life or animal life and not both.

Every species of plant and every animal has a DNA of it's own and is also restricted to the conditions placed on it at the time of creation, there will of course be those with DNA close to that of man with so many DNA profiles involved that is inivitable.

Had evolution taken place then there would be only one animal
, the one most suitable for the existing conditions of the time and not thousands totally dependant for their existance on others in the most complex system as that on earth

Now for creation.

Something cannot come from nothing, I think we can all agree on that .

Then were did matter come from in the first place?.

The best clue we have to date is the splitting of the atom, when this takes place there is a vast amount of energy released, this suggests that the atom which basically forms all materials etc; was put together from energy, no doubt the universe being full of it in one form or another.

If this is so then all other matters are totally irrelevant and all that needs to be considered is why and for what reason was the earth created and by whose hand.

I have said in a previous post that we were doing the worst possible thing in splitting the atom because in my view we are undoing the creators work and we will suffer accordingly.

Just look at the state the world is in at the present time, Iran, Israel, Sudan, Africa etc; etc; along with half the earths population starving and suffering the most unpleasant conditions etc;

Man never has and never ever would be able to find a system that worked without looking to the creator for guidance .

All other living animals were programmed and have to confine their activities accordiongly, and man was given choice and he has competely lost the plot mainly through arrogance and things like the theory of evolution.

God help us because we certainly need it.

by Shirina Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:52 pm

Greetings, polyglide:

Evolution is based on a number of totally improbable events

It just doesn't seem logical to say that, because evolution is improbable, we should adopt an impossible explanation for life.

Think of it this way. Imagine you're flipping a coin, but instead of it landing on heads or tails, the coin actually lands on its edge. This result is highly improbable, yet it happened, so we must conclude that it is, at least, possible within the constraints of the natural, physical world. Therefore, claiming that an all-powerful God used supernatural forces to cause the coin to land on its edge is a rather big leap. No matter how improbable something might be, it is still possible, but to the best of our knowledge, magical energies are not possible, thus attributing the creation of life to magic ignores the possible and assumes the impossible.

This reminds me of the Creationist scientist who actually published a detailed formula calculating the astronomical odds of evolution forming humanity. After laboriously showing us just how long those odds were, he gleefully declared evolution impossible and claimed it must have been God. "Really?," I posted in the comments section. "What kind of mathematics does one need in order to calculate the odds of an impossible event? The mere fact that you CAN calculate the odds proves it is not impossible."

Here's a mental exercise for you to ponder. What are the odds of you being born in this particular era, in your particular nation, in your particular town, to your particular set of parents? Think of all the events that had to occur in order for your unique set of circumstances to have manifested. You would have to factor in millions of variables and realize that, if just one ancestor in your family tree had deviated just slightly from his or her historical path, your life - assuming you would even be here - would have been extremely different. Calculating those odds and including all of the necessary variables would tax an entire bank of super-computers. Yet, here you are.

Something cannot come from nothing, I think we can all agree on that .

Not necessarily. I'm starting to hear some new theories on how this is actually possible.

All other living animals were programmed and have to confine their activities accordiongly, and man was given choice and he has competely lost the plot mainly through arrogance and things like the theory of evolution.

Well now, you can already see how one cannot have a God without attaching a religion to it. You claim that we have "lost the plot" and speak of Man's "arrogance" - which sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of a religion to me. After all, how can we know if we have "lost the plot" unless we know what the plot actually is? That "plot" is what forms religion - the belief that we know what this creator wants and how best to please it. Thus far we have managed to discuss the topic of evolution free from any religious undertones, but it took only a few pages of posts before the embryonic beginnings of a religion began to form. The assumption on your part is believing you know that the creator - whatever it is - is displeased that we have turned to evolution as an explanation. How can anyone know this for certain?

Just look at the state the world is in at the present time, Iran, Israel, Sudan, Africa etc; etc; along with half the earths population starving and suffering the most unpleasant conditions etc;

Yes, this is Man's inhumanity towards Man. I don't think a creator had anything to do with it. I don't believe that the suffering in this world is caused by Man straying from the path - whatever that is, because we don't even know what the path is. Can we even logically attribute splitting the atom or studying evolution as a cause for suffering in Sudan? The problem with religion is that it is easy - too easy - to point out all the suffering in the world and say, "But if everyone would believe as I do, all of these problems would end!" The next thing you know, we have theocratic fascism as more and more rules are created to be obeyed in order to stave off suffering. When suffering occurs, as it inevitably will, then someone is to blame for causing it - they have sinned! - and now we have persecution.

by polyglide Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:11 am

Man would only have to live by the ten commandments for life to be full of joy, it would not need any further ammending and you could leave religion out of it.

Had man behaved in a responsible manner throughout history then matters would not have reached the state the world is now in, all animals other than man conform to that for which they were created, man was given the freedom of choice and has abused it. It is man and no one else responsible for the ills of the world.

It is nonsense to keep talking about magic etc;

If a person from 200 years ago walked into a shop today and saw all that is available and also saw the television etc; then they would think magic was involved, when we know there is a simple answer and exactly the same applies to creation, just because we cannot understand the creators means does not mean that it is not so.

We then have the problem of understanding or trying to understand the universe, how big is it? where does it start? has it got a begining and an end? if it is endless then what is it travelling through, you see, choose how bright man thinks he is he is not very bright at all.

For those who believe in evolution, I would give it greater consideration than I presently do if you can answer a reasonable and sensible quesion,
without using the old nonsenses.

Please explain how the butterfly began to obtain it,s method of reproduction, you can have as long a period as you like and as many stages as you like.

First you have the egg, , the egg has to be in the right place to hatch, on the right plant etc; we will leave where the egg came from in the first place at the moment, then it feeds on the plant until it is time to make a change,
it then weaves a little house in which to change from a catapillar into a butterfly and away we go. MAGIC.

The vast majority of the ills of the world, other than natural disasters etc; are man made. I do not blame splitting the atom or anything else for man,s
irresponssible behavior, I blame man.

There is enough food in the world to cater for it's population, the reason many are starving is because it is not distributed as it could be and that is man's fault not anyone elses. and the same applies to medical services etc;

You could leave religion out of the picture and man would still be totally incapable of governing the world in anything like an appropriate manner.

by Shirina Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:48 pm

Man would only have to live by the ten commandments for life to be full of joy, it would not need any further ammending and you could leave religion out of it.

The problem here is that half of the commandments are religious commandments. This is suggesting that everyone has to worship God, avoid taking God's name in vain, not make any graven images of God, keep the Sabbath holy, etc. etc. and everyone would be full of joy. Therefore, fail to see how one can leave religion out of it when so many of the commandments are religious.

Also, I think eliminating things like "thou shalt not covet" (which is impossible) and replacing it with something like, "thou shalt not torture" would be better.

just because we cannot understand the creators means does not mean that it is not so.

If the creator can create something from nothing without using magic, then a naturalistic explanation is possible. Thus it eliminates the need for a creator to begin with.

Please explain how the butterfly began to obtain it,s method of reproduction, you can have as long a period as you like and as many stages as you like.

You're asking the wrong person. There are libraries filled with books written by experts in the field. The failure of a layman like me to answer such a question certainly does not disprove the answer - or indicate that there is no answer. I'm simply not qualified enough to be the answerer.

As to the rest of what you said, I totally agree.

by Sponsored content