Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Frigidus]

How would a nonliving organism...know what was needed(and evolve that function) to provide life to a living organism that had not yet evolved ?

Neo beat me to it, but "knowing" what is needed has nothing to do with natural selection. Even assuming knowledge of what is "needed" to evolve in a particular direction, you are limited by your genetics.

[Imaweasel]

I meant how can something that isnt alive and therefore cant think or plan prepare for something that is alive that is to say (the well being of that living thing)


and yes lol it was a typo

[Symmetry]

I meant how can something that isnt alive and therefore cant think or plan prepare for something that is alive that is to say (the well being of that living thing)


and yes lol it was a typo

It can't, where have you seen arguments that it can? That would be intelligent design, and there's no evidence for that.

[notyou2]

Lol...I think imaweasel just switched teams

[Imaweasel]

Well intelligent design would be "living" at all time. so what i was saying was not talking about that.

Evolution cannot never provide for the moment when nonliving materials became life.

I am wondering since evolution is obviously so true how did that process (non-life cahnging to life) happen? How did the non life prepare for the life that was about to evolve?

[jonesthecurl]

It didn't "prepare". That's the point.
There was no plan, no purpose, nobody saying "hmm- little more oxygen there boy! Hold the uranium!"

[Lionz]

Would the creation of an RNA molecule (let alone a light sensitive pigment), not be an example of order increasing?

You claim there is no evidence for intelligent design Symmetry? How about look around? Do you propose that all matter is self created and that inorganic self creating matter created intelligence and life? Did clay or an organic broth make a whole strand of RNA or pre-RNA that had the ability to evolve information or that had encoded information for making a cell? Would that not require a directing program? Was there unguided, unplanned, and undirected assembly of atoms and molecules into amino acids and further into proteins, enzymes and the DNA Double Helix?

[notyou2]

Was the first computer as intricate and developed as today's computers? No, they evolved. Life did the same thing, except at one point to go from matter to life there had to be a spark, or a trigger of some sort, but I don't believe it was "god", space aliens maybe, god, I doubt it, but then again, perhaps the space aliens are "god" to you.

[Lionz]

Is there a computer without a designer and is there an alien who is not alive? : ) There are fallen angels who have come to the earth from the heavens and been worshipped as deities perhaps. What do you know about the word nephilim?

[notyou2]

Maybe, and maybe

[Frigidus]

\Was there unguided, unplanned, and undirected assembly of atoms and molecules into amino acids and further into proteins, enzymes and the DNA Double Helix?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

At the very least we have created amino acids in a lab given the right circumstances and a week of time. I wonder how much might happen over millions of years.

[jonesthecurl]

Is there a computer without a designer and is there an alien who is not alive? : ) There are fallen angels who have come to the earth from the heavens and been worshipped as deities perhaps. What do you know about the word nephilim?

Do you see what a huge leap you made there?

(i) There is a universe...
(ii)Therefore there is a god...
(iii)The one I worship.

[Imaweasel]

hmm the fallen angel theory would explain man-gods like zues and all the norse and greek and pretty much every man made god idea...


I am still waiting for the evolution corner to provide some answers on my questions of why is is more fessable to believe one improbability (things just appeared and life just happened and wound up perfect) over the other (things were created by a diety that has always been)


?

[nietzsche]

15 pages for this thread?

There's no such thing as evidence for god!!!!!

Faith and Science are 2 separated things.

If you wanna believe in god don't look for evidence, go to church. Just be careful not to be raped by a priest.

[Imaweasel]

It doesnt take faith to believe that something that you never saw?

[nietzsche]

It doesnt take faith to believe that something that you never saw?

Actually, I think it does. In gray shades, but for the topic at hand it does. I would explain it here but I think I've done it on another threads.

I'm no trying to offend anyone, just come on if you believe then don't ask for evidence, just believe.

It's no small task to be an atheist, every now and then you have to remind yourself why you keep going on, why you keep respecting a moral code.

So, enjoy your faith and stay out of the realm of Science in this topic. Unless you believe in Tom Cruise. He can actually "use" Science to prove god. Or sort of.

[Imaweasel]

It doesnt take faith to believe that something that you never saw?

Actually, I think it does. In gray shades, but for the topic at hand it does. I would explain it here but I think I've done it on another threads.

I'm no trying to offend anyone, just come on if you believe then don't ask for evidence, just believe.

It's no small task to be an atheist, every now and then you have to remind yourself why you keep going on, why you keep respecting a moral code.

So, enjoy your faith and stay out of the realm of Science in this topic. Unless you believe in Tom Cruise. He can actually "use" Science to prove god. Or sort of.

interesting...so you do have struggles with "why" you respect some moral code then? I thought only "believers" would have a moral quandry .

anyways you have to understand I do have some biases but I am in search for truth and knowledge...so this is why I am attempting to understand and appreciate all sides

[BigBallinStalin]

It doesnt take faith to believe that something that you never saw?

Actually, I think it does. In gray shades, but for the topic at hand it does. I would explain it here but I think I've done it on another threads.

I'm no trying to offend anyone, just come on if you believe then don't ask for evidence, just believe.

It's no small task to be an atheist, every now and then you have to remind yourself why you keep going on, why you keep respecting a moral code.

So, enjoy your faith and stay out of the realm of Science in this topic. Unless you believe in Tom Cruise. He can actually "use" Science to prove god. Or sort of.

interesting...so you do have struggles with "why" you respect some moral code then? I thought only "believers" would have a moral quandry .

anyways you have to understand I do have some biases but I am in search for truth and knowledge...so this is why I am attempting to understand and appreciate all sides

To help you on your search, you have to understand that science can't explain a lot of the questions that you have been wondering about in this thread. For some issues concerning the question "why" (probably all of them), it will never be able to 100% verify anything as truth; it will only provide you with a 99.999999% assurance of truth--like the Theory of Gravity. But, if you ask something like "Why exactly do protons have a positive charge, and why do electrons have a negative charge? Why not the other way around?" It can't help you there.

Questions like the existence of God have no quantifiable date to work with, so science can't help you there. Same thing goes for the String Theory.

For example:

I am still waiting for the evolution corner to provide some answers on my questions of why is is more fessable to believe one improbability (things just appeared and life just happened and wound up perfect) over the other (things were created by a diety that has always been)

In this case, science can only explain and only strives to explain evolution and the steps along the process. Legimitate science can't dip into the realm of God. It can't prove or disprove that things were created by a diety, but it can point out where some "scientists" are completely full of it.

You've got to watch out when some "scientists" distort science by mixing in their own beliefs, their own faith.

________________________________________
[I'm leaving out some things and being a bit vague on others, but I think the others may help clarify this/expand on it much better than I have].

[Phatscotty]

Evidence for god?



The debate is over

[Imaweasel]

thanks BigBallinStalin ...i realize that there is a factor we will never be ablet to totally prove...also the fact that some would distort factsto make their side more believable..would be human nature..the only question being is how did this evil side in humans evolve...

anyways lots to think on as always im off to bed will ponder all that has been written...hmm sometimes hard to cull the serious posters from the haters though...

[Lionz]

Frigidus,

Engineered Environment
Well, Miller and Urey, in their experiment, both excluded oxygen. There is a reason they did that. They had what’s called a reducing atmosphere. The problem is if you have oxygen, that creates what’s called ozone. And ozone is essential to filter out UV light. You have to have oxygen to make ozone. And ozone has to be there or else the Ultra Violet light comes down and destroys anything here on earth. So they have to have oxygen or you cannot get life to evolve because it would be destroyed.
Another problem: oxygen is found in the lowest rock layers. I don’t believe the geologic column exists anywhere in the world. But even by their thinking, the oldest rock layers have oxygen in them.
Also, one of the gases he used was ammonia and UV light will destroy ammonia. So he has to have oxygen to make this work. Life couldn’t possibly evolve without oxygen. The problem is if you have oxygen, it will oxidize whatever you make.
See, in the experiment he had, he very carefully trapped out the product that he made. He filtered it out so it wouldn’t circulate through again because the lightning strike would be millions of times more likely to destroy what he made then it would be to create what he made. That’s not realistic for real life. You don’t get to trap out what you make when you are in the ocean.
What he made was 85 % tar, 13 % carboxylic acid, and only 2 % amino acid. And out of that only 2 amino acids were created. And those amino acids quickly bond with the tar or the carboxylic acid. He came nowhere close to making life. And the amino acids he made, [there were] basically only two and there are twenty different ones required for life. No, don’t let them tell you that they made life in the laboratory.

Amino Acid Scrabble
See, amino acids are sort of like letters of the alphabet. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet and from those 26 letters you can make millions of words. And you can arrange those words and make an infinite number of sentences. So, what he made was like making a few letters of the alphabet. Problem, half of those were right handed and half were left-handed. If you dropped letters on the floor, half of them would land upside down and backwards. Well, that’s not any good for making a common sense word. And half of the letters he made were backwards. There was a real problem with that. The smallest proteins have 70 to 100 amino acids in precise order and they are all left-handed. DNA and RNA are all right handed and there are millions of those in order. Now, what are the chances of dropping letters of the alphabet on the floor and ending up with 70 to 100 of them in an exact order, all of them right handed? The chances are zero! That will never happen! But the evolutionist has to believe that it happened. They take that totally on faith. They have not made life in the laboratory.

Brownian Motion
By the way, proteins (which they wanted to create from those amino acids—[amino acids] bond to make proteins) they un-bond in water much faster than they bond, and the oceans are completely full of water to the top. And Brownian motion is going to drive them away from each other. It is not going to bring them together. This experiment was a total failure.

[Lionz]

Jones,

Where in there do I conclude there was a Creator? Did you quote one thing and mean to quote something else?

Imaweasel,

There's so called mythology that's actually perverted history and titans is a word that's been used to refer to nephilim maybe.

Neit,

Want evidence for Him? Are there not eyeballs that are and is there not something called Bode's Law that is and is there not a lack of abiogenesis that is and is there not fulfilled Hebrew prophecy that is and are there not sexual organs that are and are there not personal testimonies that are and are there not laws of thermodynamics that are? You yourself have faith in things never observed that would have been in opposition to natural laws perhaps.

SultanOfSurreal,

Can you define evil? Free will exists and has led to actions done in opposition to Him perhaps... maybe you are against free will for all I know, but can love truly exist without it?

Note: I might have ocd and a major fear of lying, but maybe I misquoted above this for all I know... disclaimers can help me feel better perhaps. : )

[jonesthecurl]

So your leading questions were not leading questions?

e.g.

s there a computer without a designer and is there an alien who is not alive? : ) There are fallen angels who have come to the earth from the heavens and been worshipped as deities perhaps. What do you know about the word nephilim?

[notyou2]

thanks BigBallinStalin ...i realize that there is a factor we will never be ablet to totally prove...also the fact that some would distort factsto make their side more believable..would be human nature..the only question being is how did this evil side in humans evolve...

anyways lots to think on as always im off to bed will ponder all that has been written...hmm sometimes hard to cull the serious posters from the haters though...

Why do you say that if someone distorts facts they are evil?

[jonesthecurl]

When someone lies, they murder a part of the world. You should know that.
Merlin, from Excalibur.