Explaining Existence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Explaining Existence

Post #1

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Replying to post Lioness777
Lioness777 wrote: the 'scientific' theory that all the atheists love to quote is nothing but those men and women who have discovered what God has put on this earth to discover. Then they write about it.

Please tho I would like YOUR idea not a link of how you feel that there is a scientific explanation of existence. and I will then reply back to you simply...And who created the elements that has made life....life? For they just did NOT appear by themselves..
Alright. I will not link you to any other website, but will attempt to explain this to you in my own words. However, the question of existence is only the greatest question that we face. Clearly is is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to make my reply as easy to understand as I possibly can. And as brief. But again, given the nature of the question, the answer will not be easy to comprehend. And it is not a question which is possible to answer briefly and still present all of the ideas necessary to make the answer cogent. So you will have to bear with me. And I stand ready to answer all questions after you have read what I have posted.


It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything that we observe is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discreet spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, none of us existed as discreet individuals prior to our conception. The material that had the potential to become us however existed with our parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in our bodies, from the moment of our conception to this very moment in time has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms.

Einstein's famous theorem E=MC^2 tells us that matter and energy are co-equivalent. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. And as nuclear fission has abundantly established, the energy potential of even small amounts of matter is quite enormous. The law of conservation of energy specifically tells us that energy itself can neither be created or destroyed. If the law of conservation of energy is a valid and inviolate law of physics, which is the very purpose of describing the physical laws of nature as "laws," then every particle of our bodies has existed eternally in various forms prior to our current existence, and will continue to exist eternally in other forms after we have passed away. Everything is recycled and reused again and again, eternally. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then energy, which is what the universe is, can neither be created or destroyed. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the observable universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of conditions which already existed. And within our own universe this pattern of ongoing change, this FRACTALIZATION, continues through the process of the formation of black holes.

How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness. What happens when massive stars explode? The lightest elements are blown away and their heaviest elements are then reduced by the force of gravity into something approximating a singularity, from which not even light can escape and which then disappears from our plane of existence. Leaving only gravity for us to mark their passage. The question "Where did the energy for our universe come from" is echoed in the question, "Where did the energy in a black hole go?" The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive. It IS clear however, that the energy in a black hole WAS DERIVED FROM OUR UNIVERSE. In other words, A CONDITION IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE BLACK HOLE. This and the law of conservation of energy implies, at least, that the energy of our universe existed in a condition prior to the big bang. And this of course implies a multi-verse. The existence of other universes is, as yet, only a possibility. The existence of other universes is implied by some of the current research, but is as yet unproven.

How many infinite possibilities of universes have been realized and will yet be realized, each with it's own set of parameters, given that energy is INFINITE IN DURATION? There is no answer to this of course, because infinity has no number. And within this range of infinite possibility, what are the chances that a just right bowl of porridge which allows for a universe which further allows for our sort of existence, will be produced? Given that we are dealing with infinity, the answer is SOMETHING APPROACHING 100%. The driving force behind this process seems to derive from quantum mechanics. Believers choose to call the process God, because this allows them to feel safe and secure in the belief that their existence is the result of some cosmic plan. Science simply calls it quantum mechanics however. Something to be studied and understood, but not worshiped.


The stuff that makes up the universe at large and the stuff that makes up life is exactly the same stuff. We call it matter. Matter is made up of combinations of incredibly small energetic bits; negatively charged electrons combined with positively and negatively charged elementary bits of energy scientists call quarks, which have themselves combined together to form protons and neutrons. The reason this occurs is because opposites attract and the positively charged quarks, known as up quarks, are massively attracted to the negatively charged quarks, known as down quarks, and immediately join together into clumps. A pair of positively charged up quarks joined to a negatively charged down quark forms a particle we call a proton. A proton has a net charge of positive. A pair of negatively charged down quarks joined to a positively charged up quark forms a particle we call a neutron. A neutron has a net charge of neutral. While oppositely charged particles are strongly attracted to each other, particles with the same charges are strongly repelled by each other. During high speed collisions, or under the influence of heavy gravity, protons and neutrons are forced closely enough together to become bonded. The energy that caused this to occur is locked into what is now the newly formed nucleus of an atom. A negatively charged electron now becomes attracted to the proton/neutron because of the positively charged quarks it contains. It does not bond with the proton/neutron however, because of the presence of negatively charged quarks. This is the classic model of an atom; a nucleus and a free electron. This is in fact an atom of the basic element known as hydrogen. An atom which contains two protons and two neutrons, as well as two free electrons is an atom of the element helium. Both of these elements are gasses over a very wide range of temperatures. An atom containing three protons, three neutrons and three free electrons however is the metal known as lithium, which has very different properties from hydrogen and helium. Because as the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons increases, the inherent property of the element changes. Two or more elements joined together form what are called molecules. Molecules are the stuff of matter; the stuff of the universe and the stuff of us.

At the heart of matter however, in the realm of quarks and electrons, there is a constant shifting of position, due to the effects of onging attraction/repulsion. Because oppositely charged particles attract each other, while like charged particles repel each other. This causes a constant ongoing roiling to occur at this most basic level, the elementary level of the quanta, which is known as quantum mechanics. It is the engine that drives all change and the universe itself. It is what is responsible for such phenomena as lightning, thunder, wind and rain, earth quakes and volcanoes. It's also the reason that plants grow and you have thoughts flying around in your brain. Thoughts are electrical impulses caused by positive and negative charges. This attraction/repulsion caused by positive and negative charges is pretty much responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS. It can even be responsible for intelligence like our own. And yet at it's basic level it is not itself intelligent. It occurs because these quantum bits, quarks and electrons, vibrate at a certain frequency. The frequency of their vibration determines whether they are positively charged, or negatively charged. The universe is simply reacting to itself you see. Because the universe itself IS energy according E=MC<2, and because matter is one of the forms that energy takes. And according to all observation and experimentation, energy can neither be created or destroyed. This is known as the law of conservation of energy. Energy is therefore ETERNAL, finite in amount, but infinite in duration. This understanding is neither a philosophy nor a declaration of religious belief. This understanding is simple observation. The universe exists in this configuration because energy comes in different quantum bits and these bits interact with each other. If they did not, then there would be NO CHANGE and NO UNIVERSE. The "evidence" which the universe provides us with tells us of ongoing change caused by quantum mechanics. It DOES NOT tell us that these mechanical causes are the result of intelligent creation. That idea was born in the minds of intelligent creatures struggling to understand the wonder of it all. And beyond that the questions are still wide open.


Now, some might not consider this answer to be brief. Given the nature of the question however, this is about as abridged as one could ask for. So take your time with it. Consider it carefully. I have read the entire Bible. I took my time and considered it carefully.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #41

Post by Goat »

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Lioness777 has a point. I have repeatedly asked for proof or a explanation from scientists and atheists alike on science or evolution theory.

And none of them can come with more than just theory or a "he said, she said" which has no more validity than if I was to seek a bishop, prophet or pope for answers.

I mean how am I to know that these experiments were done connect, without bias or with a desire to deceive to keep the masses ignorant to make money of them, any more than a religious leader might seek money through tithes and offerings rather than really have any Godly connection at all?

How am I to know that science and religion can not commit fraud? There are countless examples of both throughout history.

So if neither can give evidence, then all there is left is logic or moral reasoning.
And since neither have succeeded in proving their points there either. I can not buy either argument and see "science theory or religion" as anything other than fairy-tales, wishful thinking or even worse a deliberate attempt to manipulate and control.

There is no more logic in everything coming from nothing or at random, than there is in it being organized by a creator. In fact the latter sounds far more plausible to me. However if there is a God, I see no reason to believe that God is at the head of any religion I have investigated, and I have investigated a lot.

So where are we then?

Well as far as I am concerned we are at ground zero when it comes to this question. But it is the most important and interesting question there is.

There is something known as 'peer review and replication of results' When it come to collecting of the fossils, there is 'recording of information about conditions where the fossil was found, and the process for retrieval and analysis ' that can be done instead of replication. What the peer review will do is examine the method and conclusions, and act as another set of eyes to see if the method of getting the data is good, and to see if the conclusions are valid given the data.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #42

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 41 by Goat]

Sure, but as with any human action whether to experiment, observe, gather data, conclude or anything else...human weakness comes more or less into play.

We know that the eye can only see a fraction of the truth or information which is actually there, only a very small part of what we "see" is even processed by the brain. On top of that we can only apply examination method and conclusion to what we focus on in regard to what we see or the data, if the focus is wrong the conclusions are likely to be so too.

Scientists are people like any other, and there are very good scientists and there are not so good scientists. But when you look on paper and just use the blanket title scientist, then you will not personally see who is behind the science done.

How able they are, how observant, what biases they have or beliefs, what focus, what desire, what motivation, what intelligence, what communication skills, what ability to focus etc...all things which will not show up on paper to the public, but will have a huge impact on the quality of work done by the scientist.

I have read here people claim that creationist are not scientists just because of what they believe, but is belief a bigger factor in accurate science than the other things I mention?

Just like with a doctor, the years they have studied does not prove how good they are, and their beliefs are not likely to be the main factor in this either.

My point is, that unless we know the people personally, see the process personally and do the work personally we can't know if the work is done professionally, correct and without bias.

In today's world where even world leaders are motivated more by money than truth, and people would rather hear flattery than a true criticism. It is fairly naive to suppose that bias, emotions, money, lack of focus etc will not play a factor in scientific work too.
So having more people verify something is not necessarily a guarantee that the work is more accurate and true.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #43

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 42 by Hector Barbosa]

Well, it isn't science because of scientists, but because of multiple independent qualified observers.

I wonder what you think of this OP, my own brew:
It must be true!

Which essentially makes the assumption that - even though religious people are not scientists, it is irrational to believe they are not perceiving something. Even if we don't know what.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #44

Post by William »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 42 by Hector Barbosa]
Well, it isn't science because of scientists, but because of multiple independent qualified observers.
Q: Generally those " multiple independent qualified observers" can be regarded as 'scientists', can they not?

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #45

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 44 by William]

[Replying to post 43 by Willum]


Yes good point and question William, and I could not have answered that better myself to your post Willum, that is why I did not respond directly to it.

The scientific method is supposed to question it's own methods and conclusions to constantly seek more truth and better answers, and if we stop questioning scientists and what they say then I am afraid we can end up having scientists become no more reliable than politicians, business owners or the religious leaders who has abused their power.

WE MUST QUESTION and INVESTIGATE EVERYTHING, if we are sincere about our desire for truth and a better future.

If not then substituting theist fantasy with atheist fantasy is hardly progress when you consider the fact that theists believe in a heaven, life after death and eternal progress. No atheist fantasy can come even close to touch that, so if atheists loose their honesty and sincere search for truth, atheism will loose it's appeal and theism will prevail.

It's my love of truth which prevents me from being theist and atheist, if I should pick to believe something without evidence, then I would see no reason not to be a theists, though I would still be against religion.

But I can not be convinced by an argument without evidence and that includes the argument that scientists should be these objectively true Gods who makes no mistakes!

I KNOW they do, for I am friends with many of them and they are NOT perfect, and history has shown them make countless of mistakes!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #46

Post by William »

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 44 by William]

[Replying to post 43 by Willum]


The scientific method is supposed to question it's own methods and conclusions to constantly seek more truth and better answers, and if we stop questioning scientists and what they say then I am afraid we can end up having scientists become no more reliable than politicians, business owners or the religious leaders who has abused their power.
Exactly!
It can be assimed that there will indeed be scientists who are corrupt.

We have to acknowledge that - if not for scientists, weapons of mass destruction would not exist, and certainly too, weapons in general would not have been created which could then be sold to people at war with one another, the consequences we can see in the verifiable evidence which accompanies this practice.
WE MUST QUESTION and INVESTIGATE EVERYTHING, if we are sincere about our desire for truth and a better future.
Exactly. Leave no stone un-turned and be very 'Sherlock Holmes' about it too!
If not then substituting theist fantasy with atheist fantasy is hardly progress when you consider the fact that theists believe in a heaven, life after death and eternal progress. No atheist fantasy can come even close to touch that, so if atheists loose their honesty and sincere search for truth, atheism will loose it's appeal and theism will prevail.
I think perhaps it is far too late as the damage has already been done and indeed we can credit both polarities equally for this being the case.

Atheism and theism don't prove anything of value different from each other.
It's my love of truth which prevents me from being theist and atheist, if I should pick to believe something without evidence, then I would see no reason not to be a theists, though I would still be against religion.
Basically what you appear to be saying is that niether position is more appealling than the other and for good obvious reason.

Perhaps it is time to step it up a notch...take things to the next level?
But I can not be convinced by an argument without evidence and that includes the argument that scientists should be these objectively true Gods who makes no mistakes!
Perhaps too - notch down the emotional expression a tad there Hector?
While I myself understand your expression, in that some atheists do seem to regard science as the new god, and scientists as the new priests instructing the masses... it can be said without the emotional baggage 'tis all.

:)

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1956 times
Been thanked: 735 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #47

Post by benchwarmer »

Hector Barbosa wrote: My point is, that unless we know the people personally, see the process personally and do the work personally we can't know if the work is done professionally, correct and without bias.
Hector Barbosa wrote: So having more people verify something is not necessarily a guarantee that the work is more accurate and true.
Correct, there is no guarantee. However, the peer review process is in place precisely to weed out bad science. Do you think the scientists in China will just happily agree with the scientists in the US? Or even different groups of scientists at different universities in the same country? Or course not. They generally want to make sure someone is not pulling the wool over their eyes.

If you personally feel that the peer review process is not trustworthy there is only one solution. Get involved yourself. No one is stopping you. Perform the experiments yourself and submit your own results for review. Attempt to debunk whichever set of data or hypothesis that you like.

That's the beauty of the scientific method. Conclusions are not etched in some religious material, they live and die by data, validation, repetition, and real world observable results.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #48

Post by William »

benchwarmer wrote:
Hector Barbosa wrote: My point is, that unless we know the people personally, see the process personally and do the work personally we can't know if the work is done professionally, correct and without bias.
Hector Barbosa wrote: So having more people verify something is not necessarily a guarantee that the work is more accurate and true.
Correct, there is no guarantee. However, the peer review process is in place precisely to weed out bad science. Do you think the scientists in China will just happily agree with the scientists in the US? Or even different groups of scientists at different universities in the same country? Or course not. They generally want to make sure someone is not pulling the wool over their eyes.

If you personally feel that the peer review process is not trustworthy there is only one solution. Get involved yourself. No one is stopping you. Perform the experiments yourself and submit your own results for review. Attempt to debunk whichever set of data or hypothesis that you like.

That's the beauty of the scientific method. Conclusions are not etched in some religious material, they live and die by data, validation, repetition, and real world observable results.
This is valid. However, I do not think it addresses the fact that scienctists are trusted for their word, when as you plainly say, the very cultures they are raised within might create bias in relation to their preferences aligned with the culture they work FOR.

Also, it is not a matter of most people having access to the equipment etc in which to replicate the data in which to then validate it.

On top of that, it is largely a political world so there is always that agenda at the forefront of all scientific investigation as this largely FUNDS what science can be done and what science cannot be done, according to political agenda.

That is the nature of the systems of disparity. It isn't about truth.

THAT is what Hector was speaking of. And THAT is what you skirted around a bit.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1956 times
Been thanked: 735 times

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #49

Post by benchwarmer »

William wrote: This is valid. However, I do not think it addresses the fact that scienctists are trusted for their word, when as you plainly say, the very cultures they are raised within might create bias in relation to their preferences aligned with the culture they work FOR.
That's the whole point of peer review. DON"T trust the scientists for their word. Perhaps I confused the issue by saying 'China' and 'US'. Let's try this again.

Group A submits a paper for review that claims X.

Groups B, C, D, and E read the paper and attempt to either duplicate the results or refute the paper based on errors that can be proven (i.e. logical errors, bad methodology, etc.)

All groups B, C, D, and E are able to verify the claims made in group A's paper and submit there supporting results/papers to the review committee. Group A's paper is finally published along with the names of the reviewers.

NOTE: At any point someone can come along and refute A's claims (and in addition B, C, D, and E's claims). This is possible if they all made the same mistake/assumption or missed some special circumstance that nullifies the original claims. If this happens, further validation and review happens. It's an iterative cycle.
William wrote: Also, it is not a matter of most people having access to the equipment etc in which to replicate the data in which to then validate it.
I hear you, but this is a weak argument. If you really need to verify a particular set of data, you can always take the requisite training and use university lab equipment (or become a professional and use private equipment). I never said it was easy, just possible.

You also have to stop and think about why you don't believe in the peer review process that is in place right now. Is it simply because the results that are coming out destroy your religious views or do you really need to know the truth about a particular experiment for some other reason? Some research eventually makes its way into tech that becomes consumer products (like the computer you are reading/typing on right now). You trust that the computer you are using works right? Do you question all the research that went into it? Why not?

Some of the biggies seem to be around evolution in these forum discussions. University level biology courses and labs will give you access to experiments that can address this. These are not out of reach for those motivated to really find the truth. I realize some find it easier to reach for the Bible, but why would someone trust that over thousands of peer reviewed research papers, mountains of data and physical evidence, and now even being able to watch the process happen in the lab?
William wrote: On top of that, it is largely a political world so there is always that agenda at the forefront of all scientific investigation as this largely FUNDS what science can be done and what science cannot be done, according to political agenda.
I'll not disagree with you on that, but do you really think evolutionary research (i.e. biology) is really based on political agendas? Do you realize that basic evolutionary research is used in medicine? Ever hear of 'superbugs' or antibiotic resistant bacteria? How do you think those came about? How do you think we discovered how they come about? Wild guess? Bible passages?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Explaining Existence

Post #50

Post by William »

benchwarmer wrote:
William wrote:
Also, it is not a matter of most people having access to the equipment etc in which to replicate the data in which to then validate it.
I hear you, but this is a weak argument. If you really need to verify a particular set of data, you can always take the requisite training and use university lab equipment (or become a professional and use private equipment). I never said it was easy, just possible.
Out of reach for the majority, and not just a case of being too poor (which many would be) but also not having the type of brain wired like a scientist...we have to remember that people have their talents and some just are not scientists.
Not all brains are the same.
You also have to stop and think about why you don't believe in the peer review process that is in place right now. Is it simply because the results that are coming out destroy your religious views or do you really need to know the truth about a particular experiment for some other reason? Some research eventually makes its way into tech that becomes consumer products (like the computer you are reading/typing on right now). You trust that the computer you are using works right? Do you question all the research that went into it? Why not?
How did you get that from what I posted?

I am keen on scientific research, but have yet to be shown anything which shows that scientific method is useful in relation to ideas of GOD.

It is simply more a question of philosophy than science anyway.

For example, scientific research may have provided evidence to show that no biblical flood happened, but this in itself does not mean that GOD (even the biblical GOD) therefore does not exist.

What it does point too is that stories were made up and attributed to that idea of GOD, but this in itself does not mean that the GOD does not exist. It may mean that the way the GOD is presented is not truthful.

Where science can be useful in determining that - the reliability of any story attached to any Idea of GOD, sure. I personally have no issues with that, but still regard science as a less than ideal tool for the Job of proving or disproving the idea of that GOD, and certain other ideas of GOD I am aware of.
Some of the biggies seem to be around evolution in these forum discussions. University level biology courses and labs will give you access to experiments that can address this. These are not out of reach for those motivated to really find the truth. I realize some find it easier to reach for the Bible, but why would someone trust that over thousands of peer reviewed research papers, mountains of data and physical evidence, and now even being able to watch the process happen in the lab?
I personally don;t have any problem with the theory of evolution and neither does it prove the non-existence of any GOD, even the biblical one, as stated already.

On top of that, it is largely a political world so there is always that agenda at the forefront of all scientific investigation as this largely FUNDS what science can be done and what science cannot be done, according to political agenda.
I'll not disagree with you on that,...

If you did you would be dishonest in that.
but do you really think evolutionary research (i.e. biology) is really based on political agendas?
Yes, it is possible. Political agenda doesn't care what it uses in order to distract people from that agenda.
If it encourages argument rather than cooperation between ordinary folks that it controls, then that is worth investing in and promoting. (in relation to the agenda)

For me though, the question is not how I arrived here, but WHY I am here, and science nor politics has any answer that will satisfy the latent curiosity of consciousness...especially individual consciousnesses who feel that they are getting the sharp end (or short end) of the stick in relation to political agenda, those who invest in systems of disparity and scientists who sell their knowledge to support corruption, only se me as a commodity and have no interest in any other reason why I exist and would even go so far as to encourage me not to even think about that.

Do you realize that basic evolutionary research is used in medicine? Ever hear of 'superbugs' or antibiotic resistant bacteria? How do you think those came about? How do you think we discovered how they come about? Wild guess? Bible passages?
Not sure how that related to the subject of GOD existing or not?

Far as I am concerned, human beings are GOD in form, making it up as we go along and finding ways to overcome obstacles the physical universe puts in our way.
It is how I would expect a GOD in human form to behave.

But forgive me, you proberbly don't know my position on the subject. [linky]

Also, here: [linky]

Post Reply