What If...?

[theStudent]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against evolution, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about fake fossils.
In fact it has now become common place for fossils sold at museums to be checked for genuineness.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing?

For example
Remember the dinosaur hoax - the one that was said to be put together using different bones?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... ecies.html

That is quite interesting.

The fossils aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of Darwins picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other vertebrates begin identical, then diverge toward their adult forms. But these icons of evolution are notorious, too: soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckels many enemies have repeated the charge ever since. His embryos nevertheless became a textbook staple until, in 1997, a biologist accused him again, and creationist advocates of intelligent design forced his figures out. How could the most controversial pictures in the history of science have become some of the most widely seen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haec ... eks4-6.jpg
English: The pictures illustrate Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law. In the beginning embryos of different species look remarkable similar, later different characteristics develop. The images initiated controversies and charges of fraud.

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather, Does this not place evolutionists in the same position as the Christians they claim are believing in fables?

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.
Here are just a few facts about the Bible.
With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
It has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where the Gutenberg Bible was the first mass-printed book.
It was the first book ever printed using movable type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence is there however, that the book we hold in our hand today (the Bible), contains information written centuries ago.

Atheist call the book fables - the reason I have yet to find out.
Maybe one of the reasons is that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - whatever.
So they claim that Christians' belief in them and what they present is blind faith, and belief in stories.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the theory of evolution, where all they have to go by, is what scientists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.
Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing a book?

And what if Darwin, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.
Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 301 by Kenisaw]

It does if they no longer fit within the defined bacteria spectrum. If a particular species of bacterium evolves a spinal column, it is no longer a bacterium, because bacterium do not have spinal columns.

Man, you sure have a lot of evidence to supply.
Please... don't hesitate to show me this one.
This sounds exciting.

Considering all bacteria are single celled organisms it is by definition that they can not be chordates nor can they have spinal columns.

He didn't quote the whole conversation. Bust Nak and I were talking about if a bacterium evolved to develop a spinal like column. He also failed to understand what we were discussing since he is asking for evidence of something that was being postulated...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 296 by Kenisaw]

Fossils and sequenced genomes are invisible? That's a fascinating reply. I have material evidence, Student. You can view them and study them and draw your own conclusions, but the empirical data is very real.

Oh, the unreliable fossils record?

It's unreliable? Explain why.

Or do you mean the Cambrian explosion which generated extensive scientific debate, and that Darwin feared as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection?

The fossils from the Cambrian make up part of the fossil record. If I was referring to the Cambrian fossils I would have wrote "Cambrian fossils". Since I wrote "fossil record" let's see if you can figure out what that means...

The one which they finally found a plaster to patch?
They are always finding a plaster to patch every wound.

If this was a salient comment I could reply, but since it makes no sense I will await some clarification on your part...

They can keep that one for now, with the few that gives them a sense of comfort.
I have no doubt they will soon "find" the patch to establish that we came from rocks.

I'm not going to watch a 50 minute video and attempt to guess what part of it you are trying to refer to. How about writing it out?

By the way, in case it was never mentioned, have you noticed that you can't prove god by disproving evolution? Most believers don't seem to realize this, and I was just curious if you had...

I consider that so silly, I can tell you that no Christian on these forums have ever tried such folly.
We already proved God.
It's scientists that haven't disproved him, because God can't be falsified. Have you forgotten?
That's an idea that comes up in the mind of unbelievers who are trying so desperately hard, not to allow a divine foot in the door.
Speaking of desperate, we are not like Darwin and his fellow workers...

ROFL!!! And yes I actually laughed out loud. You've proven your flavor of god??? What a blatant fabrication on your part. You've been asked for evidence for your god creature for months, in thread after thread, and continually avoid the question. I can't believe you had the brass to write such a tale.

I can't possibly respond to anything else you write until I see this "proof". Please dazzle me with your empirical data. Make sure you send it to the NY Times, Nova, Reader's Digest, and any other outlet you can think of too so that all atheists can review it for themselves. This is something that has to be shared, Student.

I am on pins and needles waiting to see this...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 314 by arian]


"POOF" the magic dragon
- apologies to Peter Paul & Mary

Darn right buddy, if it's new, .. it's new. I remember back in '74 my first New-car, a '68 Cutlass, 350ci 4 barrel, and the previous owner put headers on it. A 16 year old Detroit Michiganders dream new car. I would rev the engine at every stop-light so everyone could see me-new car, .. sheeeet-maan, I'ees bad y'now!?

Maybe, when people are so profoundly stupid as the way you've described up above, they are FORCED to be biologists. You seem to imagine that most of them are really quite silly.

The taxonomic ranks are fuzzy, we can concede that, and still not lose sight of what is observed.

You know it bro, .. it sure is fuzzy and hard to swallow too!

Unfortunately, your incredulity is not an accurate measure of reality.

I still can't get over that I'm an ape?

Some people have trouble accepting reality, and others are happy to learn what they can.

Not even a real ape, I'm told I'm still evolving.

If we really want to be precise, humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. And yes, evolution isn't something that can really STOP unless the environment stops changing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

One day though, .. I WILL become a full blown ape, Ah swear!

Evolving from one species to another takes A VERY LONG TIME. Once you have been born, you can no longer EVOLVE into another species. So, no, you won't ever become another species of ape or anything else in your life time.

You already are an ape. And that fact doesn't change your reality one BIT. But the idea of it seems to upset you.

Well, .. as soon as I get over the fear of the dark and get out of this stinkin' cave, I ain't got any room to paint on, .. it's been like what, .. million and a half years or so?

From my quick search on the internet, the consensus seems to be that humans have been around for maybe 200,000 years. You're a bit off.

Most people don't live in caves anymore, either.

What's life made up of?

Aaahh, .. wait, i know this one!? Life is made of quantum specks of bosons, glue-ons and clept-ons with right-spin, left-spin and the black hole ones with no-spin!? Oh, .. and it's all in Aether.
Did I get it right?

No.

Subatomic particles make up MATTER, but not all matter is alive.

Forgetting about the stuff that makes up atoms, we see that atoms make chemicals, and chemicals make life.

Not to mention the stuff that makes the "stuff that makes up atoms that make chemicals, and chemicals make life?

We have no way of knowing if life can exist on the quantum level. There is no real reason to think so. Life seems to begin at the chemical level, which is way BIGGER than atoms.

Dare we even think about the stuff the stuff is made of, that makes the "stuff that makes up atoms that make chemicals that make life" !?

It's my belief that we should dare to think about all kinds of things.

So what are you saying buddy, that it all started with what life is made of like a universe that was squeezed down to the size of whatever the atom is made of, .. and that made life?

Nobody should pretend to know what they really don't. Scientists take the best guesses that they can based on everything that they know already. But speculation ISN'T fact.

That the creation IS the Creator?

If you put it that way, the "Creator" and "creation" are silly notions. But atheists would need to ask : "WHAT CREATOR?"

If we are talking about science, we should use the word "Cause", not creator, and "effect", not "creation". Using religious words to talk about science is VERY misleading.

So why the BB and Evolution theories?

People are curious about the universe they live in.

Why ask why when everything is what it is?

Again, curiosity.
We like to know how things happen.

There are side benefits to "basic science". The kind of practical science you admire so much is BASED on basic scientific investigations.

The sun is the sun, the moon is the moon, life is life, and as you said, it is obvious. So why all this wasted money, time and effort to come up with a theory "how" it was made or "who or what" made it?

You might not care about knowledge.
Many people share your views.

You might want to investigate why learning about nature is important.

Why not spend all them Billions and Billions of $$$$$$ on tractors to help the starving build dams and plant their own crops?

You might want to ask the wealthy Christians about that one. If all people were as charitable as they think that they should be, everyone would be well fed and well educated AND there would be plenty of well fed, well educated happy people doing MORE basic research and advancing our knowledge on how to feed people even MORE.

You must be imagining that LESS knowledge is better than more. I can't understand why.

Why is it soooo darn important to know if we evolved, or some space-bacteria came from another dimension and evolved us?

It's my belief that knowledge is preferable to ignorance. We really don't know where that new stunningly good idea is going to come from. Let's not impede creativity and discovery. Our survival on this world depends on it.

We want to feed everyone. That's why biologists are hard at work. This is very serious business. Hampering the spread of sound biology in schools by insisting on a religious theory is hampering a very serious business.

Religious people can believe anything they like, but they should NOT interfere with science. Science and religion are just NOT the same things.

You might feel that your local church needs support. Good. That's fine. But we also need to support proper LEARNING of FACTS. Teach your kids about your religion in your church and keep your RELIGION out of the science class or anywhere in schools.

Everyone can pray on their own TIME. School is about learning.

A good knowledge of how life WORKS is hugely beneficial to us. We get better medicine that way. Some people recognize how science is improving our lives each and every day. Others seem oblivious and are even anti-science.

Many of those are creationists, like you seem to be.
And then so many of these creationists tell us:

"I love science".

Life is made of the thing life is made of, .. why all this grave robbing, all this BB-Evolution bs, let's do science

Now, you seem to support science, but NOT the part of biology and other sciences that try to figure out how things were in the past and where we have come from. To creationists, learning about how life changes is a big NO NO. Confirming a religious bias doesn't help our thinking about science. In fact, you seem to imagine that so many scientists aren't even DOING science if they disagree with your creationist beliefs.

In order to support creationism, one has to deny a whole LOT of science.

and see what is before us and what we can do with it?

That's what biology does as all sciences.
That's how they found out about the theory of evolution.

I mean people are starving,

So send them food, money guns ammo and lots of tasty drugs. The study of how animals and plants really work to help us better feed the hungry.

locking a few Negros in cages at the zoo

And unfortunate situation that has huge racist overtones is a very bad thing, but has nothing to do with the study of SCIENCE, biology, or the study of evolution.

will NOT feed the starving.

Nobody would contest that. But the idea that science is in the business of locking people up in zoos is sorely mistaken and actually, very weird.

Calling me an animal, an ape and my cousins rats will not feed the starving either, nor will it create more jobs.

You are wrong.

An accurate taxonomy is essential to the science of biology that IS in the business of food, and DOES create all KINDS of jobs.

And "great ape" is just where humans happen to fit on the tree of life. You focus way too much on how the word "Ape" and "animal" can be used as racist and de-humanizing slurs, instead of thinking about how the words are used in science.

Science is trying to understand nature, and is NOT in the business of putting people down in any way.

Also, isn't it funny how the more people we have, the less jobs are available?

No, that's just wrong. The more people we have the MORE jobs we have.

You have a personal experience, and then you over-generalize it to the point of being almost meaningless. It may be true that the more people there are the less jobs there are IN YOUR LOCALITY, but there is a whole WORLD out there of data.

It's like saying that if it's very cold in your neck of the woods, global warming isn't true. One data point is not ALL data points taken together.

Your way of forming some opinions is very flawed.

These are your opinions, and of course, you are quite entitled to all of them. They don't seem particularly knowledgeable opinions, however. What I see is a quite narrow view of reality, and an almost COMPLETE unwillingness to change.

Some people think it's important to not change their minds.

What does the theist offer us?

"God made life".

Heeeyy, .. come on buddy old pal, is that fair? I mean how many godsss are there?

For all I know, none whatsoever.

Zeus-Jupiter-King of Gods
Poseidon-Neptune-God of the Sea
Hades-Pluto-God of the Underworld
and thousands more, made of stone, wood, paper or plastic, .. and none of these are claiming "made life".

We don't have to care about empty fantasy claims.

They all have serious family issues, incest, murder and other life-issues to deal with.

These are fantasy issues about fantasy gods. Your fantasy god has different fantasy issues.

So just saying God made life, I mean wow, you might just say a cat made life, .. I'm sure there is a cat god out there somewhere?

Bastet is one of them. I'd say that Blastcat is another, even more powerful god, but then again, I'm a little bit biased.

That's fine to think about, but of what is God made?

Does it really matter?

It might not matter to you.

Some people don't really CARE about the beliefs they base their whole life on. Evolution doesn't matter to some, science might not, biology doesn't seem to matter, and to some, even taxonomy doesn't.

Some people just might want a job and food and to never have to change their beliefs. Some people are like that. God bless them all, I suppose.

Look around you, tens of thousands of gods, and the peoples that have the most gods are the worst off!

1. Nobody knows if any god is real.
2. The gods that people believe in is mostly due to geography.
3. You conflate how many gods people believe in with their economic conditions.

4. People give way too much money to religions, instead of feeding the poor.

They worship even rats as gods, and the rats get more food than the children in many cases.

Let's criticize the beliefs of every other religion, but not yours, of course. Your religion is immune ( somehow ) to skepticism. That's how religions work. We can get in quite easily. Now.. try to get OUT. Ha.

Not so easy, is it?

I mean I understand if they believe they will come back as rats in another life, but what if by some freak of nature they come back as human children, and the children-gods will remember how they were rejected!? I guess they never thought of that.

Religious people can have trouble with reality if they focus too much on what they can imagine. Religious people seem to have no problem being skeptical about other people's religious beliefs. However, directing their skepticism towards their OWN brand of religious beliefs is VERY difficult.

That's what religious indoctrination DOES. It's quite clever, really. Once we get IN, it's very hard to get OUT.

Like when I ask Mormons as to who is Mormo, .. and they can't answer because they have no clue!

I had to look up "Mormo". I didn't have a clue either... what does that prove?

Instead of putting other people down, you could try to build your own case UP. You are very skeptical of what you don't happen to believe. But your skepticism doesn't go far enough. You could question your OWN beliefs, and especially when so many people are telling you that you are wrong.

Doesn't that even make you CONSIDER that you might be wrong?
Right now, it doesn't seem that you can.

Ahh, .. religion and their gods, and now we have the most Powerful Religion involved in science, hell-bent on scientifically proving that the God mentioned in the Bible is NOT the Creator of the universe, but their own version of godsss are.

Science is not in the business of making up godsss OR religion. That's the preacher's job.

Atheists do NOT believe in any gods, but not all scientists are atheists. Not even all biologists are atheists. Many scientists are CHRISTIANS. Many CHRISTIANS ( even the scientists who are Christians ) believe that the theory of evolution is about as close to the truth as we can possibly GET.

Helloooo, .. where in the Bible does God say He cares whether we believe He created the universe or not?

Confirmation bias means that we will ONLY look at what might CONFIRM OUR BIAS and NEVER want to look at what doesn't.

So, you might be CORRECT that the Bible doesn't say that God cares about your belief in creation, but YOU NEGLECT to say that the Bible doesn't say that God DOESN'T care about it, either.

The truth is that the Bible just doesn't SAY if God cares or NOT. I'm quite sure that the Bible doesn't have every single thought that God might have had. But that doesn't prevent some people from making up his THOUGHTS UP on the fly.


Confirmation bias is NOT good thinking.

All He cares is that we love one another, .. not to hurt each other. He doesn't care if we believe Jiminy-Cricket created the universe, as long as we love one another, and help each other.

You might believe that, but not everyone else does.

Some other Christians might dispute that. People from different religions might dispute that. Atheists might dispute that. We are entitled to our beliefs. The problem that I have with religiously motivated thinking is that it seems to want to insist that whatever they happen to believe is also TRUE. And of course, it's just not at all the case.

What religious people always present is a SUBJECTIVE truth... and that is entirely personal. It is subjectively true to you personally prefer one flavor of ice cream over an other. It is subjectively true to you personally that God "doesn't care if we believe Jiminy-Cricket created the universe."

But even though you might present that belief as a fact, it's not objectively true, but merely SUBJECTIVELY true. And if something is subjectively true to you, that's all we can say about it. You might prefer vanilla to chocolate ice cream. What's to debate about that?

You might prefer your god beliefs over other god beliefs. What's to debate about that?

I'm quite sure that even religious people don't believe that ALL religious beliefs are all true, or they would believe EVERY religious beliefs are true. I don't think many religious people DO that.

Too many religiously motivated people seem to completely dismiss the possibility of having false beliefs. Apparently, since they HAVE a belief, it MUST be true. But very oddly, they also COMPLETELY dismiss that any other competing religious belief is true.

A closed system of knowledge prevents us from acquiring new data that COULD potentially benefit our thinking. Being wrong is OK ... that's one of the first steps of LEARNING. Insisting on being RIGHT all the time isn't at all the best strategy for leaning. Some people WANT to learn new things. And that means, from time to time, admitting that we are WRONG.

If we are NEVER wrong about anything, that's a sure sign that we aren't LEARNING anything.

There are two steps to your thinking method that I can see:

1. Have an opinion
2. Confirm it

Can we show God's made of anything other'n imagination?

No, imagination is made by God the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit, .. just as our imagination is made by our mind/spirit.

Do you have any reason to give us for that opinion?

You need a mind to imagine, but those imaginations will NEVER become your mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "imagination" OR "mind", or how you know that one cannot "become" the other, and what that could POSSIBLY have to do with anything else you are trying to tell us about in here. A completely random, disconnected, vague statement like that does NOT make any sense. If we are trying to CONVINCE anyone about anything, word salad like that isn't going to get the job done.

But todays religious-science

You could write that term all day, and STILL it would be profoundly meaningless. There is no so thing as "todays religious-science".

You are very imaginative, but the problem is that you seem to think that what you can imagine has to be all true, and yet, you give us no reason to think that your opinions are based on facts at all.

BUT in a world with almost 8 billion people, there might BE someone making a "religion" out of science today. It's just not all that WIDESPREAD. If it's anything at all, it would be a small cult.

A quick Google search for "The religion of science" didn't bring up any religious website, for example. And no "Religion of Scientism" seems to exist.

When some religious people want to disparage science, they call it a religion.
It's VERY ironic.

has a problem understanding between finite and Infinite.

NOBODY KNOWS EVERYTHING.

Mathematicians and theoretical physicists don't know everything. They work on very difficult problems, and DON'T pretend to know what they don't. What you see as a problem is actually a virtue. Although they might think about infinity, they don't EVER SAY that just because they can dream something up that it has to be TRUE.

That's a problem with most religiously motivated thinking. It's stuck with a CONCLUSION, no matter WHAT data or reason is presented and no matter how LITTLE real evidence for it can be demonstrated.

Now we can "imagine" we are apes, and go with it and start acting like animals, but what a waste of mind/spirit that is.

Science isn't in the business of "spirit", whatever you think the spirit is.

Once "imagination" starts ruling our mind, like in religion, then that man is doomed already.

So, to get the list straight, I will list what I think you don't like so far:

1. The imagination
2. Scientists who don't agree with creationism
3. Biology.
4. The theory of evolution
5. Taxonomy
6. Racism... ( although, that's not too clear )
7. Being called an ape or an animal

Let us know if I missed anything or got something wrong.

One will say: "I imagine my god/gods like this" and another says,; "No, god/gods are like this, .. and can do this"

It seems to me that you are saying the same exact kinds of things about god as these other religious people. Why should we believe YOUR version and not THEIR version?

If people would just stop and THINK for a second and see that it is the MIND that asks, that imagines, .. the imagination is finite, can change at our will.

It's a good idea to stop and think about even our most cherished beliefs.

DO YOU?

Sentience. In order to think stuff into existence one needs a physical brain. Here again, we have reams upon reams of scientific data in support of this almost spectacularly obvious notion.

Only the theist can't see that in order to think a physical world into existence, one needs a physical world in order to do it.

Close, real close, except like I said, "finite/physical cannot create (become) Infinite. And there has to be an "Infinite" for even One finite thing to exist."

Close to what your opinion is, or close to the TRUTH of the matter?

Some people claim to know all there is to know about "infinity" and "creation". I am NOT convinced that they actually DO know.

When SOME PEOPLE have an opinion, I guess nothing is ever going to change it.
But apart from telling us, YET AGAIN, and again and again what they can imagine must be true, they have NOT even come CLOSE to giving us any reason to believe how it CAN be true.

Some people form an opinion and then they stick with it. Some people have an opinion about creation, and that's it. Some people can't seem to be able to consider other opinions than their very own.

ON THE OTHER HAND,

Some people care more about how to think than supporting a particular conclusion.
Some people care more about thinking than confirming a particular bias.

Infinite-Eternal needed something finite to be able to create other finite things, and this is when He, that is Infinite created laws, He defined a language, or uttered a "Word", this is now finite because words are defined, it has a definite meaning, a beginning and an end.

Wow.. so much claimed INFO.. But no mention of how you acquired all of that so called "knowledge". Your beliefs are your beliefs. But if you don't even ATTEMPT to prove them true, we should all just ignore them.

We all know that "believers gonna believe."

The only thing that you have proved to us so far is that you believe certain things, and you don't believe others. Your justifications for those beliefs, however, are completely mysterious.

Through the Word (specifically defined language) God was able to create everything else, and everything was and is, and will be created by Gods Word.

Another "FACT"?

No, that's an opinion, and one with NO justification. You are entitled to voicing your opinion, don't get me wrong, BUT... that's all you seem to be able to do.

What FACTS are you presenting to support your belief, your opinion on how God can create and so forth?

Voicing opinions is not debating or explaining or justification. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be babbling. What I get out of your writing is something like this:

"He believes a lot of things, and they are mostly all wrong or completely made up."

It seems to me that MANY religious beliefs are really unfounded opinions that are not based on facts.

Any of y'all ever just sit on the couch and think "I need me another beer", and poof, another beer magically pops into your hand? And we live in this physical world!

If you have, please tell us all your secret! Or just poof me one here into mine

Things like that happen all the time, maybe not a beer, but things far greater than that, what we would definitely call miracles.

Another belief.
You seem to have a LOT of those.

No miracles of any kind from any religion has ever been proved to be REAL.

But I know what you mean Joey, and here is the problem; Just as man was getting ready to learn how to "create" like God, Satan screwed it up for us by deceiving Eve.

What does ANY OF THAT mean?



God was watching all of this?

And God let that happen?

And God didn't know in advance?

Satan wasn't part of the PLAN?

Acquiring knowledge is wrong?

God punished Adam and Eve for something that SATAN did?

GOD'S plan was "screwed up"?

Being like god is wrong?


Religious people seem to not understand that from the OUTSIDE of the faith, these notions are incoherent and pose WAY more problems than they ever SOLVE. Mythical stories like Genesis NEED to be interpreted subjectively to make ANY sense. To imagine that Genesis is in ANY way what ACTUALLY OCCURRED is throwing reality OUT the window. From the OUTSIDE, this is like believing in any other fairy tale.

This threw us off a good 6,000 years, because by now, as I have said many times before, .. we should be renovating planets in other star-systems, in other galaxies like we renovate a room to welcome a newborn into our lives.

Now, you pretend to know the future, too. WE SHOULD BE by now?
How did you establish that future "fact" ?

I am QUITE sure that it wasn't by using SCIENCE.

Creating is NOT easy, just ask the creators at Honda working on ASIMO the robot.

Some parts of creating is easy, and some parts are hard. FOR non-magical HUMANS.

Now that is actually EXTREMEMLY EASY compared to what went into creating man, all from scratch, taking quantum dust particles to create the atoms and so on, all the way to a fully functional human. But there was something even our Creator could not create, Adams mind/spirit, and THAT He gave of Himself. (you know the story, right?)

Apparently, the only effort that it took GOD was to utter a word. And apparently, that would could have been the word "GOOD".

To which I say, big deal. An all powerful magician can do anything without ever breaking a sweat. That's the whole POINT of magic. In the beginning, there was just one single little WORD. Wow.. now, lets get some clay.

The dust/finite part of Adam is one thing, but giving him a mind with free will is completely different. That part is God the Infinite and Eternal One.

Magic is real, in your world. Not in mine.
You can imagine that some parts of God magic are difficult, whereas some parts are easier.

I'll tell you what I think is hard and easy.

It's EASY to make something up like magic. .
It's HARD to prove it's true.

I don't read anywhere in Genesis that any of God's magic was DIFFICULT for him. You must have made that part up by using your fine imagination. Again, the only problem I have with your kind of thinking is that you seem to imply that what you can imagine needs to be TRUE. That's where you leave me behind. No atheist will think that you have demonstrated your beliefs ( and bountiful imaginary musings ) are TRUE in any way.

It seems far more important for some religious people to IMAGINE things than to care if what they have imagined are TRUE. That's a very romantic way of dealing with reality.

When I want to be so romantic, I "suspend my disbelief" for a while... and "LIVE THE DREAM". It's all very nice and even exhilarating. But then I DON'T pretend that any of my HUGELY imaginative world is REAL.

Not once the evening is done. I wake up and face reality.
I dip into romanticism once in a while, for FUN.

But playing pretend, while is it HUGELY FUN, is all SUBJECTIVE to the core. There is nothing "objectively real" about anything I happen to dream up. And I can guarantee you, there is PLENTY of dreaming up in my life. It's just that none of it is "religious". I have way better things to spend my imagination on than GODS.

Yeah, I haven't heard a good explanation of any theist either, they are too busy justifying their own personally created god/gods to know and understand our Infinite and Eternal Father, our God, .. who He is, and How He creates. Yep, .. "Pooofff!!" is just about as far as they understand.

"POOF" is the story in Genesis.. the whole UNIVERSE popped in to being when God finally got around to think about it...

But if you get real scientific, and if you are able to step outside of religious indoctrinations that we been subjected to for the past 6,000 years, understanding, or coming to "know God" is not that difficult. Simply because we really were created in His Image, so God is really not far from any of us just as it is written in the Bible.

We really don't know when people really started to make up gods. But let's get real scientific and say something like "we really were created in his image".

Because that kind of statement seems to pass as "getting really scientific" in some religious circles.

But sadly, because definitions of words have been so distorted, beaten, degraded and spit upon,

WOW... are words HOLY or magical?... In the beginning was the WORD, right?

Here is another demonstration of how you don't seem to like CHANGE very much. It seems that to you, it would be better if some words NEVER CHANGED meaning.

Apparently, once we form THE VERY FIRST IDEA, we should never change it. But change isn't JUST an evil thing lurking in the dark trying to spit on everything. Change can be POSITIVE... and a positive change is called an IMPROVEMENT.

Trying to stop change is also going to stop improvements. I think that's a LOSING strategy in life. NO CHANGE, NO GROWTH.

Some people fear change...

and then crucified and even buried, that now ONLY those who seek really hard with true intentions to find and to come to know God can understand.

I suppose that you can imagine that EVERYONE who doesn't believe what you do just haven't TRIED ENOUGH or were HONEST ENOUGH to believe what you believe.

So, non believers are LAZY and DISHONEST?
Well, it DOES say a lot of bad things about us in the holy BIBLE, doesn't it?

Yeah, we atheists sure do get a LOT of that kind of bigoted thinking directed our way. It's not very convincing. It's just insulting.

I mean it's like getting to be "born again", in the newness of our mind, not in the finite, physical flesh, but as a new creature who knows when he is walking in the spirit and when he's walking in the flesh, .. you know what I mean?

You advocate changing our way of thinking, TO YOURS.
And then, never changing AGAIN.

The below seems to be the strategy here:

1. Change our minds so that we agree with you
2. Never change our minds about it ever again.

Sounds like a mental trap to me. I would call that "religious indoctrination".

And oh boy, .. I tell you, that only God Himself through His Word could do, to bring someone like us who have been blinded by religions for so long, to be able to stand up as one from the grave and dare think using our mind.

And oh boy, you sure seem to believe that.
And I would guess that your plan is to never change your mind about it.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 291 by Kenisaw]

I can see the work of a master designer, in the blueprint of life.
I never saw a brick building build itself.
Nor have I ever seen code write itself.
Quite the opposite, I have seen someone write code.

This argument sounds convincing until we ask who designed the master designer. Your contention is that brick building can't build themselves. Ok, so I guess master designers can't design themselves either. Who designed the master designer? Surely this designer is the most complicated thing there is. Did this designer just poof into existence? Or maybe always existed? Sound familiar to another argument? i.e. maybe the building blocks of the universe we are in always existed or just poofed into existence?

You can't claim everything needs a designer and then turn around and say 'except for the master designer'. If you concede there is one thing that didn't need to be designed, then the whole argument falls apart.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 312 by Wyvern]

It's scientists that haven't disproved him, because God can't be falsified. Have you forgotten?

This was rhetorical, with a bit of sarcasm.

Please show the proof you have of gods existence.

You mean the same I showed so many times?
If you haven't seen them, cool your feet for a bit, while I put together something special for you.

Why haven't you sent this proof to any and all scientific journals, to say the least you would get multiple Nobel prizes all at once.

Guaranteed so not true.
Otherwise many scientist would have gotten

multiple Nobel prizes all at once

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12- ... d7d7c7a1e5
Not only that.
It would have saved billions of dollars, less space junk, less empty headed people, and probably less problems.

I think the people that have forgotten are the people that made the positive claim(i.e. god exists) also have the responsibility to provide evidence of their claim, as I hope you are well aware you can never prove a negative.

No, we haven't forgotten anything. That's the scientific theory, which I don't go by.
I leave that to those scientists, who don't want to

allow a divine foot in the door.

Which by the way isn't all scientists.
I've done enough quote mining on those.
God is positive all the way.

Since you stated that science can not disprove god please go about disproving mutations can not be responsible for the complexity of life. Since you seem to think being unable to disprove something is proof for it then your own statement is proof for mutations.

As I said, it was sarcasm.
I am not obligated to follow what I consider unreasonable theories.
You on the other hand must stick to them. So no. Mutations stay right where there are.
Don't try to worm your way out.

The same way scientists can specuate that unintelligent nature is responsible for life, or that life came from an extraterrestrial source, yet claim that God cannot be falsified, indicates clearly how hypothetical, unreaonable, and determined they are, not to

allow a divine foot in the door.

some scientists have presumed that nature has an innate tendency to produce life's building blocks preferentially

please go about disproving mutations can not be responsible for the complexity of life.

Again???
That would be the third time.
Here it is again.
You know, it's vital that we chew food properly, in order for it to digest.
Chew over it slowly, until it sinks in.
If it still hasn't sunk in, then instead of asking me to prove why I say it can't happen - Why don't you prove it can happen, or has happened.

I think many people even the unbelievers as you call them
would be overjoyed if you could come up with proof of there being a god.

No, Sorry.
They were not overjoyed.
They were dissatisfied, and claimed that it wasn't proof.

Speaking of desperate it is in fact the religions that have been fighting scientific progress for literally thousands of years.

If you are referring to for one example, the case of Galileo and the Catholic church, yes.
Some religions are as Galileo mistaken where the Bible is concerned, and some are fanatical.

For example, when Galileo taught that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth, the Catholic Church ordered him to recant, because they considered that what he was saying contradicted the Bible.
Galileo was right. The Church was wrong.

The Bible was not wrong.
The Bible nowhere states that the sun orbits the earth. It was the ancient astronomer Ptolemy who said that.

Today, they are certain fundamentalists, who believe that the earth was created in six days of twenty-four hours each.
This is in striking contradiction to the teaching of science, and it is also not in harmony with the Genesis account, in the Bible.

The fundamentalists believe that their teaching is based on the Bible, but a careful reading of Genesis, reveals that they are mistaken.
The Bible states that the earth was created at some unspecified time in the past, and the famous six days involved the preparing of it for man to live there. Genesis 1:1-31.
For example, Genesis 2:4 says:

This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

In the Bible, day can mean more than a twenty four hour period.
It can mean a thousand years or even longer. (Psalm 90:4)
Moses refers to all six creative days as one day.

The Bible record, together with verifiable history, indicates that the seventh day of that creative week covers a period of 7,000 years.
Hence, each of the six preceding days would be of the same length.
See the thread Genesis for more, as well as evidence that life is the product of intelligent design, and the more, the merrier.
Since Kenisaw and Willum failed so miserably with the Genesis account, I pulled this one, especially for them.
Enjoy guys.

For years, on the other hand, some religions believe that much science is compatable with the Bible.
For example, Is this statement not, if I may say, scientifically true?
Hebrews 3:3, 4

...Of course, every house is constructed by someone,

The following is true also, but some scientist choose to ignore it.

but the one who constructed all things is God.

Does it make sense to acknowledge that a house needs a designer and builder and at the same time claim that a complicated cell accidentally sprang into existence?
See my post on reasonableness, where science is concerned, and here for more on science that is compatible with the Bible.

Also consider some more facts the Bible presents, which science agree with.
Psalm 104:5-9
The Book of Popular Science:

From [earliest] times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated.

When Texas Was at the Bottom of the Sea
https://books.google.com/books?id=M2bfC ... as&f=false
Satellites detect 'thousands' of new ocean-bottom mountains

Ecclesiastes 1:7
water cycle

...science thrives on comparing the theory of evidence.

I think I can handle your question about entropy and thermodynamics as regards evolution. It's really quite simple, in a CLOSED system entropy will in fact increase over time. Can you think of anything outside of our planet that might be introducing energy into the earth?

Of course, there are billions of energy sources.
The question is, who ordered them into their perspective positions.
For example, how many suns are in a solar system?

However, your "handle" is still an idea - not yet proven to be workable.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -for-life/
And what's interesting about all these theories, is that the "fingers" keep pointing in one direction, ever time.
But many scientists keep saying, "Nope."
As though they are programmed. "Nope." "Nope."

Note*
Scientific theories are based on what is considered evidence, as interpreted by people who are not perfect.
There are often, in fact most often, adjustments to their theories.

Did you know, for example, that science once taught

• That heat is a fluid called caloric?
  Caloric theory

  The caloric theory is an obsolete scientific theory that heat consists of a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids. The "caloric theory" was superseded by the mid-19th century in favor of the mechanical theory of heat, but nevertheless persisted in some scientific literature -- particularly in more popular treatments -- until the end of the 19th century.

• That the atom is the smallest particle of matter, and that it was impossible to divide it?
  What Is the Smallest Thing in the Universe?

  The answer to the enduring question of the smallest thing in the universe has evolved along with humanity. People once thought grains of sand were the building blocks of what we see around us. Then the atom was discovered, and it was thought indivisible, until it was split to reveal protons, neutrons and electrons inside. These too, seemed like fundamental particles, before scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made of three quarks each.

Of course, scientists have long rejected these theories and replaced them with others more consistent with the facts as they now know them.
New facts discovered in the future, or different approaches to facts now in their possession, could lead to modifications, or even abandonment, of theories scientists now hold.

Consider the latest theory:
No Big Bang? ...universe has no beginning
...and its implications:
The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?

Hawking does not deny the existence of God, but he does think his model eliminates the need for a Creator.

The Bible hasn't changed in the past 16 centuries.
When the evidence is considered, it is clear that it is the reasonable minded that believe in intelligent design, and the Bible.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 321 by benchwarmer]

Or maybe always existed? Sound familiar to another argument? i.e. maybe the building blocks of the universe we are in always existed or just poofed into existence?

Either it always existed, or not.
It could not poof into existence.
Read here.
No Big Bang? ...universe has no beginning
...and here:
The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?

Hawking does not deny the existence of God, but he does think his model eliminates the need for a Creator.

The difference with my evidence, is that the designer has intelligence - yours doesn't.
Therefore no complex universe or life for your argument.

On the other hand, if you are willing to accept that your building blocks is intelligent... We might be getting somewhere.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 313 by Blastcat]

In order to make their religious beliefs seem more likely to themselves, they may say that the pursuit of science is a joke.

Here we go again...
No. That's not what's happening here.
At least not on the side of theist.

I hope you read the book, and shared it with your friends.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 313 by Blastcat]

In order to make their religious beliefs seem more likely to themselves, they may say that the pursuit of science is a joke.

Here we go again...
No. That's not what's happening here.
At least not on the side of theist.

I hope you read the book, and shared it with your friends.

WHAT BOOK?

The Bible?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 321 by benchwarmer]

Or maybe always existed? Sound familiar to another argument? i.e. maybe the building blocks of the universe we are in always existed or just poofed into existence?

Either it always existed, or not.
It could not poof into existence.
Read here.
No Big Bang? ...universe has no beginning
...and here:
The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?

Hawking does not deny the existence of God, but he does think his model eliminates the need for a Creator.

The difference with my evidence, is that the designer has intelligence - yours doesn't.
Therefore no complex universe or life for your argument.

On the other hand, if you are willing to accept that your building blocks is intelligent... We might be getting somewhere.

I think you completely missed my point or you just don't want to address it. You talk about an intelligent designer. Fine. Who designed this intelligent designer? A designer designer? Did it design itself? Oops, you already said that can't happen right? So it was always there? And your argument is that it is intelligent so that makes the whole thing make sense?

Even if I were to grant there may be an intelligent designer, I would say science is the only way to sort out what this design is all about. Putting all your belief in one particular set of documents written by ancient people hardly seems to be the way to go. Hopefully you have a least researched how your particular favorite set of documents was put together. It would be fascinating to learn why that set of documents is to be believed over numerous other offerings and why it seems to trump observable data.

[Willum]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

It's funny, it has been explained how order arises randomly.

Like the solar system, or even clouds appearing like dragons.

Clouds are just water vapor. Imagine if you had all the time in the world and an entire planets' worth of chemicals to work wiith, you only have to get replication, once.

If you do it enough times even puzzle pieces the size of molecules, will form cohesive patterns.