Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

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

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

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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. /.

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.

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.

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

The fishing and worms bought back fond memories though

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.

[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.

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

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..

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?

Next thing you know, people will be querying Genesis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no possibility of creating something from nothing, as I have stated previously, so everything in the universe must have come from something and that is where we have a slight problem.

So we have to go back before we go forward. where did the earth and the universe originate ?.

If the earth was not here we would not be concerned about life or anything else.

So we can I believe rule out the evolutionists ideas that everything just gradualy grew from nothing by a sequence of unsupervised events the universe suggests differently.

So solid matter must have been produced by some means or other and distributed in a certain manner throughout the universe.

As I have said previously splitting the atom suggests that matter was created from energy.

If that is so then there must be someone, something, that is capable of producing matters from energy.

It follows that in that case anything is possible and is also the answer to all that has happened on earth including the creation of life.

We know for certain there is a universe, we know for certain there is an earth with living things and we should be intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that all things involved could not possibly have come about by chance.

If that is so then there must be someone, something, that is capable of producing matters from energy.

I agree that something produced matter from energy. Not someone. What that something is has not been discovered yet and we make a huge error in reasoning by assuming that the something is therefore a Someone. The default answer to an unanswered question is not 'Therefore it must be God.'

Our best bet is that scientists will one day discover the answer. A complex world and universe is there for us to investigate with all of our technology and the finest minds and the scientific method. Science has already put to bed many biblical assertions which is enough to convince me that the infallible word of God is indeed fallible and therefore not God. And if that is true, then it is not worth our adoration, sycophancy (is that a word? ) or irrational beliefs.

Best wishes , polyglide.

There was a period not all that long ago when medical science applied the label of "Cancer" to almost every human ailment that Doctors could neither cure nor quantify.

That situation has improved, but there is still a human tendency to describe the inexplicable as "Acts of God". For what that may be worth.

We find it hard to admit ignorance of a topic.

I am just looking out of the window and if I could count the number of wonderfull things I can see it would be beyond belief to even begin to suggest that they all a came about by chance.

I cannot understand how anyone could think for one moment that matter in all it's different forms came about without some kind of intelligence involved.

If anyone saw the most simple constuction they would not believe man or animal was not involved and yet with all the complexities involved in creation they believe it all came about by chance and a sequence of unsupervised events.
It just defies logic.

It just defies logic.

So does an all-powerful supernatural being with magic spells ... but that doesn't seem to stop the majority from believing in one. I suppose that's why religious belief is faith-based, not logic-based.

If you were to ask my fiance about the existence of God he would say the following:

Of course there is a God; He lives at Old Trafford and runs a very successful football team.

I cannot understand how anyone could think for one moment that matter in all it's different forms came about without some kind of intelligence involved.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is assumption. There is no evidence that a supreme being waved his magic hookah and all came into being. Your every day life doesn't work like that. Why should anything else?

There is no supposition or magic in the following example:-

A man builds a house with all the modern cons, along comes a man who has never seen anything like it, having lived in the forrest all his life.

He would have every right to think, as some issolated people have done, that magic was involved but as we know there is a simple answer.

The answer to the universe may be just as simple as that if we were aware of the power, powers, of the creator of the universe.

If we were certain of such a power then there would be no need for faith or religion.

There is no supposition or magic in the following example:-

A man builds a house with all the modern cons, along comes a man who has never seen anything like it, having lived in the forrest all his life.

He would have every right to think, as some issolated people have done, that magic was involved but as we know there is a simple answer.

That's exactly what it is, polyglide. Supposition based on the forest man's ignorance.

The universe is indeed a wonderous place but I sincerely doubt any Supreme Magician is behind it all. If there was and he has the power to make himself known and doesn't, then he's a Supreme Jerk, in my books. Which is why the very idea of an intelligence out there just playing with us defies all logic.

Hello Snowy, Whereya been???

A Lady at a Saturday Market was drawing, from photos that people brought along with them.
The drawings were so stunningly accurate, like intaglio, I was transfixed watching her. (Of course n'all, she weren't half worth lookin' at!! )

This reminded me of the careless ease of the potter at work.

Now Question,

were these capabilities God Given

Or were they gained by trial and error, observance of what is around?

I think the latter, which to me is kinda like wot evolution/mother nature (the Pict in me arises!!) has been doing for all time.

Hi astra

I'm around, thank you for asking To answer your question...to my mind nothing in humans is 'God given'. It is down to biology, genetics, environment, education and the individuals own 'spirit' to achieve and be the best they can be whatever it is they are doing.

I love your dog pic btw. Dogs have the greatest expressions eh? Take care

astra wrote:Hello Snowy, Whereya been???

A Lady at a Saturday Market was drawing, from photos that people brought along with them.
The drawings were so stunningly accurate, like intaglio, I was transfixed watching her. (Of course n'all, she weren't half worth lookin' at!! )

This reminded me of the careless ease of the potter at work.

Now Question,

were these capabilities God Given

Or were they gained by trial and error, observance of what is around?

I think the latter, which to me is kinda like wot evolution/mother nature (the Pict in me arises!!) has been doing for all time.

I wonder if there isn't a little more to it than that. There are people who seem to be born with a gift, others with a talent.

Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mozart to greater and lesser degrees were gifted. Mozart playing Violin, 'Piano' and composing at the age of 5. Also playing before royalty. Beethoven 7 1/2, Shostakovich's gift was obvious early but took time to channel.

On the other hand musicians like Berlioz, Bach, the Strausses were talented, their latent ability being brought out by teaching and coming to fruition later than the gifted.

It has to be admitted that in some cases those with ability were not encouraged by parents and were in their teens before 'blossoming' out.

I do not suggest that this is God given. Just an anomaly in nature, maybe in inherited genes or natural talent/gift.

I agree that with most artists/artistes it is a matter of learning by trial and error, and observation as you say.

Isn't 'life' strange. Some people are brilliant. Others, like me, just thick:oops:

No. I'm not an expert on Classical composers. I know something because I enjoy classical music.

Snowflake has a lot to learn.

There are numerous instances of very young people with outstanding abilities, both musical and including nearly every subject, some as young as 4 years of age.

No doubt they learned all their skills from parents whilst in the womb, the trouble with that is the parents in many instances were as lacking in those subjects to the same extent as Snowflak is in understanding the real world.

Snowflake has a lot to learn.

This is a very astute observation. One I happen to agree with.

There are numerous instances of very young people with outstanding abilities, both musical and including nearly every subject, some as young as 4 years of age.

Yes, I agree with this as well.

No doubt they learned all their skills from parents whilst in the womb, the trouble with that is the parents in many instances were as lacking in those subjects to the same extent as Snowflak is in understanding the real world.

LOL. Ok polyglide.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml

Please see the above website. My understanding of the real world is based on evidence. Hope you have a really nice day, polyglide.

Presumably a discussion concerning what is real about "The Real World" can continue into infinity.

I am afraid a lot of what the scientists call facts are just conjecture and supposition, if they were fact and proved evolution, then the whole issue would be solved and there wouild be no need for further debate.

Just as a little thought.

If we had an island with every facility for the welfare and well being of all the creatures on earth, including man, food shelter etc.but never having been inhabited previously by any living creature and we then put a number of all the living creatures onto the island including man, all just of a mature age, there being no history or books etc for man to learn from all starting from the same position, man having just been fed until mature, not learned to talk nor what food etc; was good or bad etc;.

Then there is no doubt all creatures other than man would survive they having been programmed to survive, man not.

If we had an island with every facility for the welfare and well being of all the creatures on earth, including man, food shelter etc.but never having been inhabited previously by any living creature and we then put a number of all the living creatures onto the island including man, all just of a mature age, there being no history or books etc for man to learn from all starting from the same position, man having just been fed until mature, not learned to talk nor what food etc; was good or bad etc;

Then there is no doubt all creatures other than man would survive they having been programmed to survive, man not.

Gosh, I missed this............and my first thought was 'Wow! what kind of convoluted thinking went into this and then I was fairly convinced that a great big doobie or a glass of wine was involved....

Polyglide's scenario is creationism without God's hand involved in it. In other words, man is an animal unless there is God to elevate him. Polyglide needs to read a science book and learn about evidence and the scientific method.

It always amuses me that people who slate science 9 ways til Sunday are doing it on their wifi laptops through their iPhones with a dongle while whizzing through London on the Underground on their way to an airport to take them to a sunny beach somewhere in about 2 hours.... go figure.

Then there is no doubt all creatures other than man would survive they having been programmed to survive, man not.

In other words, God made a bunch of idiots ... ?

You can always tell when a person has run out of logical answers to a logical quesion, they try to be funny but only prove their ignorance and stupidity.

The example I gave regarding the island etc; should prove to anyone with one iota of common sense that there is too far a difference between man and any other creature to make it even a remote possibility that evolution created man.

All the science in the world cannot explain this, all the nonsense spouted by the scientists has no foundation whatsoever, it is pure conjecture.

God did not create idiots, man turned himself into what he is, some idiots show themselves by not being able to tell stork from butter as some of the replies indicate.

Instead of making innane comments just explain why man would not survive as I expalined in my comments regarding the island.