Proof that life did NOT come from a primordialsoup

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]In other words, do whatever it takes till you believe in God?

That would be the inverse of the statement...the statement was written:  Do whatever it takes until God is out of the equation.

Quote[/b] ]I would be a fool and a hypocrite not to believe in a god when faced with evidence.

But there is evidence...but you as well as many others, have choosen to discount it because you believe other theories are more acceptable or palatable to yourselves.

Quote[/b] ]I prefer Sherlock Holmes when he said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

This is not what science does...it continuously searches for answers other then God.  It has, IMO, left the realm of realism and entered hard into the realm of fantasy just to achieve this end.  It has been left with only one answer, God, and now matter how improbable it is, they continuously look for another explaination...no matter how fanciful it is.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

whoa hoho. i'm gone for a couple of days, lol. this topic is like a big bom. it exploded. lol. anyway, an addition. do you believe that athiesm is in it's own way a "religion"? i mean, it says that you have to use science to find a NATURAL way of explaining things... well, just another topic starter...

 

[Avesther]

Thats a different topic altogether.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Jan. 03 2005,5:40)]

Quote[/b] ]But there is evidence...but you as well as many others, have choosen to discount it because you believe other theories are more acceptable or palatable to yourselves.

What is your definition of evidence? I believe evidence is something that furnishes proof. If you have evidence that proves the existence of God, I'd love to hear it.

Evidence, like proof and truth, is finite.

Quote[/b] ]This is not what science does...it continuously searches for answers other then God. It has, IMO, left the realm of realism and entered hard into the realm of fantasy just to achieve this end. It has been left with only one answer, God, and now matter how improbable it is, they continuously look for another explaination...no matter how fanciful it is.

I disagree completely. Science is INDEPENDANT of relgion. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, et al. That's the way it SHOULD be. It shouldn't be influenced by religion. Remember the Dark Ages, when Christianity had a stranglehold on science? Men were AFRAID to speak out against the church, even though the SCIENCE they discovered was correct. When science became independant of religion, that era was known as what? The Age of Enlightenment.

Science COULD and CAN prove God. The fact that it DOESN'T should speak volumes.

Quote[/b] ]do you believe that athiesm is in it's own way a "religion"?

How many times do we have to go over this SAME discussion? The answer has been furnished for you many times over, there is no point in answering it again.

 

[Mr.Bill]

I agree with DV. Science is not an enormous conspiracy against the psychology of religion and faith; it is merely a vehicle to obtain truth. There is no fantastical ulterior motive present throughout the scientific community to undermine religious theology. What science discovers may do that, but it is discovered merely for the sake of the discovery. Truth is the goal in science, not "Proof that God doesn't exist." If god is 'true,' then science can and should prove it. Like DV said, the fact that it does not is significant.

 

[Dark Virtue]

The fact that science opens itself up to attack and criticism, which it DEPENDS upon to survive, should further negate a conspiracy theory.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Wow, this topic went no where. Started nowhere, and has progressed nowhere.
Lee Strobel. Did he write a third book? I remember The Case for Christ and The Case for Creation but that's about it...and interviewing various minds and trying to pluck on our heartstrings isn't the best way to infallibly prove that God is true.

Okay, I've yet to be furnished with an alternative explanation from our two opposing sources here another route to creation and all that whatnot.
Dark Virtue, or Mr. Bill, what is it that you propose for creation? I think all our arguments invariably come down to proving which method of creation it was, so it'd be healthy for us to get that out of the way first.

Myself, I believe creationism. It simply does it all, and then leaves the questioning to us, while a more scientific method tries to create the origin and then use today to explain yesterday. For instance, the commonly accepted Big Bang theory isn't that nice since it has its own flaws, so more is added to it, like inflation theory, but that proposes a few other questions (one big one that's remained unanswered is why there are variations in CMB if it all started at once, and whatnot) and so on and so on. Either way you go, you have questions.

So I want to know: what're your answers to origin?

 

[Khaos]

[/QUOTE]So I want to know: what're your answers to origin?

That is the same issue with religion. Where does the orgin of God and where and when was this God created. You say that something can not be created out of no where, then where did God come from?

The orgin is not the issue. Instead it is how you look at the way in which the person interacts with the framework. For example, Gods_Peon said that truth is subjective. Once that is granted, then the foundation of faith comes into question. The reason for this being, is how do we not know that the word of God has not been twisted or created from another source to benifit a few?

Why is creationism wrong? If you look at any science, you see that at first something is flawed, then is refined to become truth. Atoms becaome truth that way. There was a Nova special done that explained the current theories behind creationism and fixes the flaws in the orginal idea.

Another thing to look at, is the National Geographic that shows Darwin was right. Darwin was never ment to go agianst Christians, for he was one. He just explained how we got to the point we did after God created us.

Khaos

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Khaos @ Jan. 06 2005,2:56)]Another thing to look at, is the National Geographic that shows Darwin was right. Darwin was never ment to go agianst Christians, for he was one. He just explained how we got to the point we did after God created us.

We probably should stay away from evolutution, since there are many holes with the theory, but you are right in that Darwin intended his theory to be a mere explanation of how God did his work. Most everyone who called him a heretic ignored the final lines of his paper, which attributed the entire evolutionary flow of life to "its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator in a few [life] forms or into one." Whether he really meant this or was merely trying to appease the clergy is unknown...but yeah.

 

[Dark Virtue]

More specifically, there are huge problems with DARWINIAN evolution, as there is no evidence to prove one species evolving into another.

Khaos said:

Quote[/b] ]That is the same issue with religion. Where does the orgin of God and where and when was this God created. You say that something can not be created out of no where, then where did God come from?

And that is the problem with the Intelligent Designer theory. If you assert logically that everything has a designer, then who designed God? You can't tread down a logical road and then stop whenever it suits you, you have to travel it until the end. Therefore, the Watchmaker Analogy is far from logical.

Ultima Avatar asked:

Quote[/b] ]Dark Virtue, or Mr. Bill, what is it that you propose for creation?

Simple: I DON'T KNOW.

There isn't enough evidence to point to a first cause. Without evidence, all anyone can make are assumptions.

You can choose to side with Creationism, but there isn't a logical, reasonable, scientific basis for it. Again, I'll bring up the Enuma Elish. That tale of creation is far more interesting than the Biblical version (not to mention much older). I have asked before but haven't received any answers: Why is the Enuma Elish wrong or fallible? Why does it hold less water than the Biblical version?

 

[SLNT_FIR]

Hey, DV, if God exists and he created, you're asking who created him? Well first of all, you got to look at what he did. If you conclude he is real just on the premise that he created, JUST that premise, then you think that his sources are credible right? His source? The bible. it says he was there since the beginning of time... and i would probably not have supported the churches you are talking about... i do not like the idea that a church would just have assumptions from the bible like the earth is the center of the universe... it says in job that we revolve around the sun. subtly. and what about Enuma Elish? I need to check on your old posts...

 

[SLNT_FIR]

Bottom line. Not enuff evidence God is real? i think that is what you are saying... if i'm wrong, correct me. oooo! new title for our 'religious discurssion'

 

[Dark Virtue]

SA, please post the chapter and verse in Job you are referring to, I'd be very interested in reading that.

 

[Jim]

It's been a while.

I know this seems like a pot-shot, but you might want to look more closely at Lee Strobel's work.

Another Case Not Made

Sorry for the drive-by, but you should consider the fact the Strobel isn't entirely honest in his book.

The majority of his interviews were with Christians. There is every reason to believe them, but that fact makes their opinions suspect to bias.

Jim

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Darwin once said to prove him wrong someone would have to find an animal that was the same 1,000,000+ years ago as it is today. A fossil of a fish was found near that Pacific Ocean (could be a different ocean though). A couple years later a fish was caught that was the exact same as the one in the fossil. Thus Darwin was proved wrong.

 

[Marcylene]

Hey Jim, long time no see! Good to see you

I was going to help SA out! I, too thought that if not in Job, somewhere the Bible spoke about the earth revolving. This article clarifies that assumption. Great site regarding creationism. It was taking from the following link and there is extensive Scientific research in many areas. The thing that touches my heart most about these Scientist is that they admire non-Christian Scientist and care for their very souls.

Lot's of Scientific evidence and Biblical proof regarding God as Creator.

Quote[/b] ]The crux of Sagan's arguments is the validity of his "great demotions." Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant random combinations of molecules near a remote star in a vast, uncaring universe? I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God's care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.

The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, "look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . . "Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, "there must be something unique about the earth." Einstein's theories of relativity and the great ages of our solar system and universe both have yet to be proven. If relativity can be shown to be true, some believe the effect could possibly explain the apparent great times of light traveling from distant stars.[2]

The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be supported by the fossil record, violates common sense in the development of complex systems, and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

These "great demotions" then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God's statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

God has declared our standing as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . (Genesis 1:26).
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

It is evident from only these few selected Scripture passages that God created the universe and cares for us to the point of providing His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. In our finiteness we don't fully understand an infinite God, but how dare we arrogantly deny such a God.

REACTIONS
Dr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

This point of view among so many scientists today is described in Romans 1:20: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Dr. Sagan has rejected out of hand the evidences he has clearly seen for design in the universe. Although he has expressed a reluctant need to find a Designer, he has given up on the search and has constructed his own "Tower of Babel."

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]Hey Jim, long time no see! Good to see you

Cheers, Marcy! And thanks for the quote!

Quote[/b] ]
The crux of Sagan's arguments is the validity of his "great demotions." Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant random combinations of molecules near a remote star in a vast, uncaring universe? I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God's care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.

Quote[/b] ] Has science shown the Bible to be untrue

science requires that assertions be proven, because otherwise, a scientist could declare that Santa exists, and this, according the quote, would have to be accepted as fact until 'proven otherwise'.

Quote[/b] ]random combinations of molecules

But we highly non-random combinations of molecules.

Quote[/b] ]a vast, uncaring universe?

A personification of a non-living entitiy. Indeed, the universe is much more like a cold, calculating machine.

Quote[/b] ]The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

A few things about biblical creation:

First, it made clear a 'firmament', a roof or celing in the sky. We now know this to be untrue. As well, it also gives examples of the sun 'standing still' or even moving backwards (Joshua 10 for example) which is NOT corroborated by any other civilisation. Such a significant event would have no doubt warranted record or note in other civilisations, no?

In addition, the Bible describes the earth as "resting on four pillars" and having "four corners". The reference to a tree so tall it could be seen from all the Earth (in Daniel) all of which point to the Bible supporting a Flat Earth, as could be expected from a pre-tech civilisation.

Unless the writer is willing to also defend Flat-Earth theory, the use of the Bible as a scientific or historic document is not really advisable.

Quote[/b] ]In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, "look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . . "Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, "there must be something unique about the earth."

Sagan is entitled to his belief. However, he one day be proven wrong.

Quote[/b] ]
The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be supported by the fossil record, violates common sense in the development of complex systems, and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

No it does not, this is flatly wrong. Even Answers in Genesis advises against using this argument as it is so roundly refuted. One of evolution's primary purposes was to *explain* the fossil record, thus the fossil record was the key evidence on which the theory was based.

The assertion it could not have occured in 15billion years is flatly untrue. If anything there is wonder why it has progressed so slowly, considering biological change (such as speciation) progresses rapidly when it does occur.

Quote[/b] ]These "great demotions" then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God's statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

This is said after a chain of incorrect statements, as though human intelligence and evidence don't matter. The theories continue to make accurate predictions, so they can't be 'faulty' in any way. The alternative is that either scripture is faulty or their interpretation.

Quote[/b] ]REACTIONS
Dr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

Carl Sagan is not 'blinded' in essence, to any evidence. If such evidence were bountiful to the point where one would need to blind oneself, surely Creation would be a more readily accepted and easily proven theory, surely?

In addition, Carl Sagan has a distinct advantage: His claims can be tested and falsified where new evidence comes to light and has the luxury of admitting where he is wrong and changing his mind as and when new evidence comes to light, whereas scripture must remain rocksteady. This adaptibility is where science shines over faith, as it is readily capable of admitting error and changing to suit new evidence.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

Hmm... Joshua 10 is the main thing which people use to prove the bible wrong. however, there are other ways of saying that.DV, Job 26:7.

 

[BMM]

There are many things that can't be discovered with science

1.  Where did every molecule in the universe come from?

2.  Where does the universe end?

3.  What is matter?

4. What is energy?

5.  Why are objects attracted to each other?  

6. Why does light shine?    

7. Why is matter solid?  

8. Why does energy move things?  

Science can't answer everything

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]You atheists pretend like science answers everything.

"You atheists"? I apologise, as it seems I have stepped on your toes. Please tell me where I presume to know everything/claim science knows and answers everything. I apologise if my response made you angry, but the quote was misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Your questions seem to be an attempt to gratify some kind of anger toward my earlier post. I cannot answer them, nor will I pretend to. In the first to cases, where do molecules come from, and where does the universe end are absurdly abstract questions. since scientists (and theists too) can't agree on how the Universe started in the first place, the first question is meaningless. And the second, exactly why are you assuming the universe has 'ends'? How do you know it has 'ends'? How do you know it isn't simply infinite in all directions?

Quote[/b] ]
3. What is matter?

4. What is energy?

5. Why are objects attracted to each other? Why does light shine? Why is matter solid? Why does energy move things?

Since I am not an expert in physics or quantum mechanics or string theory, I suggest you direct those questions, if they were serious, to a professional. Why not email Stephen Hawking? Or simply ask a teacher?

Quote[/b] ]Care to answer all these questions with science? Science can answer all these questions, can't it? After all, can't science answer everything?

I don't understand why you are hostile. SA started this thread, and he seemed amicable. My intention was not to throw science in anyone's faces, but to refute an article that was mistaken.

Science can't answer all these questions. Science can't answer everything. No one has ever said this, and I certainly never implied it. Please refrain from such attacks. I try to be civil and have not been insulting to anyone here. I resent your insinuation that I am a know-it-all.