Atheists keep challenging my objectivity in debates whenever my belief that God exists comes up. “You are just proposing a personal belief as truth”, “That is just faith; I cannot go on just faith I must have proof” or “God cannot be examined; there is no experiment that can be conducted to examine whether He exists or not”, “If God exists, why does He not reveal himself?”. My observations have convinced me that the evidence of His existence is all over the place, but then any particular evidence can be interpreted differently by different persons, so what convinces me will not convince everyone.
Keeping this post from getting too long has proved difficult particularly because I have a lot of evidence collected over decades, some of it very technical.
Basically, I was concerned that for just about everybody I came in contact with, their religious beliefs were based on their upbringing. That was just unacceptable to me!!! One should hold to a belief because it has been proved true, not simply because that it what he/she was taught. Too often I had conversations like:
"How do you know that?"
"That's what I was told." or "The Bible says so."
My question: "So how do you know that it is true?" would usually bring the emotional reaction as if I just committed blasphemy!!!.
"You're questioning the Bible??!!!"
"Yes!!! How do I know that what it says is true?"
"It's the word of God!!! It must be true!!!".
Trouble is there are several books claiming to be "The Word of God". How do I know if He/She even exists? That we are being told the truth; that He/She is even interested in us.
My own reading of the Bible showed several areas where the teachings of the various churches, the Jewish religion and the Muslim religion contradicted it in several areas. The English translation of the Q’uran that I borrowed contained too many contradictions with the Bible; so does my copy of the Book of Mormon as well as all the Apocrypha.
A belief system should not contain contradictions. One truth does not contradict another. These were the basic principles that I adopted in my search for truth.
To cut the story short: I decided to reason according to cause and effect. On that track, you must come upon an uncaused first cause. Next, examine what you see around you to determine if the uncaused first cause is pure chance or the result of intelligence. My observations of nature and life around me kept revealing things so complex (often irreducibly complex), so exquisite, so efficient, that I was forced to conclude that it is unreasonable to say that it all came about by blind chance.
Atheists of course will say that is not logical, because if you take it to the next logical step, the reasoning falls apart; that is the cause must be even more complex than what I have observed. They miss the logical conclusion that the uncaused first cause cannot be from this universe. When I step outside the universe, I am dealing with infinity of time going back into the past; therefore an intelligent, unimaginably complex uncaused first cause is plausible. This universe definitely had a beginning; too much evidence points to it.
What evidences are there of a creator? First let’s consider the accepted fact that the universe has not been in existence forever. Most papers that I have read proposed that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. That creates a problem for some theorists because the Hubble "deep field" picture shows galaxies from 13.5 billions years ago. The only logical conclusion is that they were created because they shouldn't be there that soon, so at least one of them proposes an age of 15 billion years. However, another says that even at that age, we still shouldn't be seeing so much order from chaos so soon.
As for the so called "Big Bang", if that theory is correct, it was a very controlled expansion. The Expansion rate had to be faster than the speed of light, yet just the exact speed such that it did not collapse on itself nor fly off too fast to allow for what we see around us today. I hear one say that the background radiation is homogenous and that it is illogical that it should be (what’s the name of that professor with the Japanese name?). One theorist proposed that the expansion slowed temporarily to a speed below that of light, and then accelerated. (God again?)
How do I know that the Bible is from God? It contains way too many verifiable information that could not have been known, deduced or figured out by observation by the writer: Moses said that there was a globe-engulfing flood before any life appeared on the Earth; and that land was pushed up above the surface to separate the oceans from land (He said only some of the water came down then and that the rest fell in the flood of Noah's day). Job said that the Earth is suspended on nothing. These have been confirmed centuries and millennia after they were written. Daniel's prophecy was so detailed yet so accurate that critics have suggested that it was written after the fact, yet parts of that prophecy were not yet fulfilled even in Jesus' day. He predicted that the Roman Empire (merely identified as the one that would follow Greece) would not fall to another conqueror. Only the Eastern Empire did.
Let me close with the one that some atheists had wanted to debate on in another thread: In trying to prove that life can come from inanimate matter (abiogenesis), some scientists have been demonstrating that it is possible to spontaneously generate amino acids. I have even read the paper, about somebody producing a type of nucleic acid (tPNA). They need not have bothered. Currently, fully formed DNA, RNA, neucleotides, the sugars ribose and deoxyribose as well as the necessary enzymes exist that they may experiment with all they want. The ponds, rivers, lakes, seas and land are teeming with these substances in their free state, yet nowhere have any life forms been generated from them because too many of the important life processes can only occur within the confines of a living cell. Viruses cannot reproduce outside a living cell. Also, there are other life forms that require invading a living cell and then using its systems and organelles to reproduce. So they can synthesize all they want. No life will result.
I am yet to read where any experiment has resulted in the spontaneous generation of the necessary sugars (ribose or deoxyribose), the phosphate base, nor any of the neucleotides (Adenine, Guanine, Cytocine, Uracil, Thymine). It is therefore unreasonable to conclude that abiogenesis is possible.
So, current scientific and other data suggests that a God exists. I am logical therefore in drawing that conclusion.
I have read and read and read, but I am open to examine any new information or discovery that has surfaced.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 67
I was reminded today in a magazine article that Isaac Newton's religious beliefs were quite "heretical". Have you ever read them? His reasonings are quite compelling.
were, shall we say, 'quite unappreciated' by the church.// I am finding that great 'thinkers' were not appreciated by religious leaders--even if those thinkers were right.
Now, I think it's time for great thinkers to repair some of the damage religion has done to faith in God. Religiosity, through the centuries , has not been a good ' public relations' committee for God.
And you, my friend, I perceive as one of those great thinkers./// Lonnie
On Newsvine, the atheists there challenged my objectivity and accused me of being selective in the evidence that I accept. I had hoped to evoke a similar reaction here also.
First, don't be so sure you know my beliefs and thoughts and my nature, just because I am under the broad category "atheist". It is a very broad category.
Gosh, Dennis, there are just so many things you say that don't follow, don't make plain sense. Myself, I'm just a piano player with a BA in music. I'm no Einstein. It's very commendable that you have taken on to scrutinize your beliefs, but your research takes some turns that veer quickly from the rigors of what any researcher or institution would accept, except perhaps those at bible colleges, where the strengths of the program are decidedly not scientific.
Scientific research demands that we separate our beliefs and conclusions from the data we have, and that we not jump to any conclusion, no matter how trivial or how obvious or how right it may seem. Science seems cold, but it is the thing we must do if we care about "truth". Heck, even the word "truth" has different meanings in science.
In short, before I try, with my piano player's eye, to nit-pick your article until the cows come home, I would like to suggest that you give your findings to some scientists with a cross-section of religious outlooks and ask that they give it the cold eye of a researcher. Some of them might even ask you why you want to subject matters of the heart to such impartiality, but at least you might have a better picture on what research is, from a researcher's viewpoint.
I am currently reviewing the information on the links they posted and plan to post on this subject again at another time. So go ahead and let me have your rebuttals. I like to check on my objectivity from time to time. It seems that you think that I was not being totally objective. Let me know where.
Also, you are correct; there are many things that I shouldn't assume about you just because you call yourself an atheist, so I have a habit of asking before concluding.
Some believe there is no God, others believe that He is irrelevant or simply has no interest in us. I really don't know which category you fall in.
You state: “any particular evidence can be interpreted differently by different persons”. Yes that’s true. But the scientific method doesn’t even allow for personal interpretations. Facts are facts, and it’s up to us humans with our limited minds to have the discipline to refrain from skipping any steps (jumping to conclusions), to come up with “4” and nothing further when the evidence is “2+2”, for example, even though you may be personally convinced that 2+2=22.
There are several statements in your article which color your logic and make your conclusions lean more towards the ‘personal interpretation’ category. For example, you state, “A belief system should not contain contradictions. One truth does not contradict another. These were the basic principles that I adopted in my search for truth.” These “basic principles” are your personal interpretation. I certainly haven’t encountered a belief system without contradictions. The bible itself is an abundant example. How could all truths hold no contradictions of other truths? Is a truth true forever?
Scientific inquiry is designed only to observe, question, bring up these contradictions. Science is not absolute. It is the tool we use to test our ideas as we increase our understanding. Science is not flexible. Either you have drawn a logical conclusion or you haven’t. If your conclusion is faulty, so then are all subsequent conclusions. So we must take care not to jump to conclusions, and when we find that we have jumped, we must be willing to scrap all those subsequent conclusions, like discovering a missed stitch in a knitted sweater.
“I decided to reason according to cause and effect.” What caused you to do that? “On that track, you must come upon an uncaused first cause.” What evidence brought you to the conclusion that there needs to be this uncaused cause? How did you come upon this uncaused cause? Why does time need a beginning? Why do things need to be caused to interact? Can’t they just interact according to their properties, mass, speed, relative location, chemical make-up, etc? If there was a big bang, I’m sure a lot of things got mixed together all at once, enough for a few seemingly random or seemingly planned events to occur. Why is the obvious conclusion that God must have been behind it all?
“Next, examine what you see around you to determine if the uncaused first cause is pure chance or the result of intelligence.” A little data here would be helpful. What type of intelligence?
“My observations of nature and life around me kept revealing things so complex (often irreducibly complex), so exquisite, so efficient, that I was forced to conclude that it is unreasonable to say that it all came about by blind chance.” That’s nice but what are these observations? The love in the eyes of a child? The beauty in a flower? Do you have anything we can sink our teeth into, other than that you have “observed” things? And what makes something “irreducibly complex”? Merely the fact that you or I can’t ‘reduce’ it? I have heard the claim that the way the banana fits into one’s hand is proof of intelligent design… My point is no matter how complex something seems, it doesn’t point to God just because we can’t grasp the idea at present.
Next, your statements about the big bang and the age of the universe carry no “problem”, nor are our observations absolute or complete. Science can only estimate the age of objects it sees. It does not state with certainty that things appear to be so old, just that it appears by what can be measured that, for example, the universe is seven minutes old or 98 billion years old or so. Anyway, there are probably many wide-ranging estimates and possible scenarios about the age of the known universe. We don’t even know for sure that ours is the only universe, whether or not the universe is finite. The Hubbell telescope might be sending back mind expanding pictures and data, but that doesn’t mean we see the hand of God. It just means there are a lot more galaxies out there than we thought, and they are changing like everything else.
I think the difference between your writing here and science is that science is not looking for ultimate answers, only for progressively greater understanding of nature. Science is already on to the next question, ahead of all of us, but our collective understanding all put together is only a beginning from another perspective, and mind-bogglingly complex from another.
Anyway, these are a few observations about your research. I hope I have succeeded in pointing out how you have skipped many steps, and made conclusions on the basis of previous faulty conclusions. If I were to spend the time to proceed through your whole article, well, that might set the record for longest comment ever on Gather. The bottom line is you must take care to verify every conclusion before proceeding to the next question.
But don’t take my word for it. I’m just a piano player.
Coming to a conclusion based on evidence is what I did. Trouble is the conclusion is still a personal opinion. That is precisely why all those conclusions are called theories. I have read many cases where two equally qualified and experienced experts come to different conclusions using the same data or find.
Your comment that belief systems contain contradictions is what I keep hearing, but I just cannot find that to be acceptable. I maintain that no truth should contradict another truth. I have read only one philosopher who agrees with me on this. Everybody else thinks that I am being unreasonable.
My opinion that truth is absolute is also a problem with most people.
If you want, I could put up a little example of something specific when I am next at a PC. I am now on my cell phone.
“My observations of nature and life around me kept revealing things so complex (often irreducibly complex), so exquisite, so efficient, that I was forced to conclude that it is unreasonable to say that it all came about by blind chance.” Giving too much detail in examples would have made this post too long., but here are a few links:
Protein Synthesis Protein Synthesis (more details)
Independent origin and the facts of life
Major Eukaroytic Cell Organelles
Our endocrine system
There are lots more.
I prefer scientific theories to absolute truths. The best a personal opinion can hope for in terms of being backed up by the facts, is that that opinion is supported by current scientific theory. Theory is a word which has different meanings inside and out of science. Science comes to conclusions based on current knowledge, but the scientific mind is not so quick or arrogant to call itself correct absolutely, for all time, to the exclusion of all other knowledge. That's the basic difference between science and religion. Instead, science is made up of theories, which convey not that every question has been made apparent to us, nor that all knowledge is complete. In science, a "theory" is our best understanding of the data at hand, after observation, discussion, publication, retesting, etc. It's an ongoing process which will never be finished. (My opinion)
The dream aside, what got my attention in the article was this :
"" One truth does not contradict another.""
And I wanted to say that that statement or claim does not apply to this realm of manifestation, it could only apply to the realm of the "irreducible", that of GOD.
All else, is a matter of relative truths because everything else under the concept of GOD is both relative to each other directly, indirectly, and to and through GOD ... one gigantic humongous interconnected system beyond our kin to know ... but it just is ... the Spirit of GOD (as the =) interconnects all potentials of + and - in the Basic Equation of Truth, the BET as (+=-) !!!
Thus speaking of science and it's (or anybodies) facts, one must come to realize that in the greater scheme of things (from the very beginning of human reality) facts have been nothing more than what people have agreed on their being for the sake of communication standards of commonality ... all such are then in the stricter sense just arbitrary facts ... and when called truths, only a relative determination also.
Now none of this would matter for the person content that reality is what it is purported to be and claimed to be ... we could just go along with it where the past always (because of the facts and truths we claim and use) determines the next step of our future ... one building block upon the next ... the inverted pyramid that is actually the structure of our present "known" (supposedly) reality.
Thus you could look at that structure as an inverted hierarchy all coming together at the very bottom, the inverted apex where the very first fact and truth is the foundational block of it all ... and the key to all else above from the materialistic perspective of the, our, materialistic (physically defined) reality.Not much more than only what we have told ourselves and each other that it is over the ages ... had we used different , also arbitrary, facts of agreement (mostly those things involving time and space, and various measurements, not to mention so-called "laws") our present day reality would also be different ... it is but a consensus reality.
The only thing that can connect it all is the concept of a GOD of some type ... otherwise there can be no connection other than the ones we determine by ourselves based upon our own calling ... and others unknown to us which would also be a mystery and thus nothing able to count (rely) upon.
Thus it seems to me that we, as science tends to do, should keep our facts as truthful as possible and continue building our consenous reality ... and or look to the concept of a GOD, God, or god(s) ... best suggestion, both.
But that brings me to the subject of GOD (and/or the others mentioned above) ... that also is something that needs more agreement upon and truth around ... in fact it is the very most important thing that anyone could and should consider and/or reconsider ...
My response was that for me to accept two mutually exclusive beliefs as true in illogical to me. It would mean that I can choose to believe what I wish; truth then would not exist. In my search for truth, the path I have chosen is one truth cannot contradict another truth. If I come upon a contradiction it means that one of my beliefs or perceptions is wrong and must be changed.
I debates, we strive for truth by pointing out how a belief or perception contradicts something else that has been accepted as truth.
In science classes I was taught to eliminate contradictions. Therefore the belief or theory to accept is the one that leaves the least contradictions. Seems like a logical way of ariving at truth.
I was raised Anglican and have never read more than perhaps a dozen pages of the Bible - total in my entire life, but I have always known all kinds of things that were to me so obvious that I thought everyone else already knew.
The subconscious brain can communicate with all other subconscious brains telepathically. The block is in the input/output which is the little part of our brain that tells us who we are, makes us feel important and thinks that it controls everything. This accounts for all the voices that some people are aware of and others do not admit to hearing except in dreams (which apparently is socially acceptable). I have always been able to sleep standing up and dream while awake. Spiritually we are a part of everyone else and everyone is a part of us. So if this is the case, it is possible that the God we hear is everyone else trying to communicate with us and we only hear it/him if we are able to get the conscious brain to let up on the control part a bit. Loss of control is rather frightening.
So the God in everyone as mind/spirit fits in with one of the 12 pages that I did read and the idea of the devil being in everyone; more in some less in others would be just as possible. Also gives us a perspective that may explain why some people manage their demons, others do not.
Then there is this 666 thing. Always thought it was a big number of nasty people. Never ever thought that we were talking about one entity with all the bad in one person.
Science simply has no need whatsoever to default to a god just because it can't yet explain every last detail of the universe.
Your uncaused first cause is an argument that is really quite old and has been debunked many times. What caused the first cause, for goodness sakes? But no matter your answer, the universe needs no first cause according to astrophysics and cosmological science - space and time itself erupted from the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum which was an unimaginably tiny thing.
You also need very badly to understand what a scientific theory is and is not. This is far and away the biggest mistake folks make. The Big Bang Theory (inclusive of Inflation) is our very, very educated explanation of how our universe came to be. It is NOT a guess. Evolution is NOT a guess - it is the single most supported scientific theory in the history of science. A scientific theory starts out with a hypothesis based on observations, a tentative explanation for observed phenomenon. After testing, experimentation, data gathering, more observations and rigorous analysis of the evidence, that hypothesis becomes a theory.
Evolution Theory has no need whatsoever to include a god of any kind in its explanation of the the development of life. I do hope that you understand that Evolution does NOT say anything whatsoever about how life came from non-life - it only applies after life has begun! This is yet another misunderstanding that religious folks tend to be caught up in.
Contrary to what YOU may believe, there has been found NO single example of irreducible complexity. NONE whatsoever. If you think you have an example of a biological part that is irreducibly complex, then you have been led down the wrong path. Science knows no such irreducible complexity. And, even if we came upon something that might qualify, it wouldn't prove anything whatsoever except that we don't know all the facts and/or details yet.
Just because you can't explain something scientifically does NOT mean that one must then resort to interjecting a god into the equation. Just because science can't explain something does NOT mean that science will never be able to explain it. It just means we can't explain it yet. Once upon a time science could not explain how electricity worked. In fact, all we knew at one point, was that electrical current flowed. But we didn't know which way/direction it flowed. But we were using it anyway and scientists labeled the positive and negative terminals - they got it wrong it turns out. Today science has finally understood that electrons flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal, not the other way around that science originally thought. But science is SELF CORRECTING and it sooner or later gets it right!
Dennis, I have seen nothing new in your arguments. Nothing new at all that hasn't already been thoroughly and completely debunked many times by many others.
Again, the truth really is so much easier to see once you stop believing that you already have it.
I have not said that I am trying to prove that God exists. Just saying that it is not necessarily illogical to conclude that He does.
The fact that a god exists does not automatically mean that he should be worshipped.
Too often when I read a scientific paper, the author includes extrapolations that are too large for me to trust.
No science does not have to default to God; but why always exclude Him?
In science, a god is not needed. So why include it? Science doesn't actively exclude god, it simply has no need to include god in order to explain things. By definition, a supernatural being is supernatural. Science deals with natural, not supernatural.
examples of iereducinle complexity: Protein synthesis, RNA synthesis and DNA replication.
Dennis, these are all processes, not biological parts. Each of those processes is a series of chemical reactions. And all chemical reactions are most certainly reducible and consist of simpler and simpler chemical reactions. It's chemistry, not evidence of god. Granted that we don't yet know or understand every living last detail of those chemical reactions yet, but there is no reason to think that science won't someday crack each and every current mystery of these chemical reactions. Just because I use the word "mystery" doesn't mean that it will remain a mystery for ever. Any mystery is simply something we don't know or don't currently understand, not evidence for god. Thunder and lightning were a great mystery to mankind for thousands and thousands of years, until, to wit, Ben Franklin flew his proverbial kite.
Thank you for clearing up your position that you contend that it is not illogical to conclude that god exists. My contention is that it is illogical to conclude this and is therefor irrational - irrational in the technical sense of the word, not intended in any way as a pejorative.
My basic position on god has been that I do not begrudge folks their faith in god. Faith being defined as a belief that is either not supported by the evidence available, or a belief that is contradicted by the evidence. I have not problem with this in essence. But I do take exception when folks attempt to prove their faith, prove god, or prove their religious belief systems using logic and reasoning or scientific evidence. I have seen no strictly valid logic (there can be no other kind except invalid logic) that supports a belief in a god. And I have seen no scientific evidence that supports a belief in a god.
In other words, I am not saying that you shouldn't belief in a god. Rather, I say you have a right to any faith you choose, but I would take exception if one is trying to justify their faith with reason and logic or science.
There is enough evidence to convince me that it is reasonable to conclude that all Felines might have a common ancestor, also that all equuines might also share a common ancestor, but not enough to convince me that horses and cats share any common ancestor.
The theory that birds descended from dinosaurs contains contradictions that prevent me from accepting it as reasonable in its present form. I am ardently searching for more on it, so if you have any useful links, please send them to me.
Your comment: ". . . I would take exception if one is trying to justify their faith with reason and logic or science" is interesting because I notice that a number of scientists believe in a god because of reason, logic and science. Has Dr Leaky changed his mind? In a very long debate with Dr. Sy Garte, he revealed to me that he does believe in God for very scientific reasons and of course you know of Michael Behe. However, Behe is a very poor debater; he keeps trying to prove the existence of God, he should stick to saying "This is the evidence that makes belief in God reasonable." Rather that trying to say, "This evidence proves His existence."
There are no good theories on abiogenesis, even Dawkins refers to the probability as ". . . vanishingly small . . .", but even that fact is not proof of God's existence, just one of the things that makes some (including scientists) accept God's existence as reasonable
Regarding "irreducible complexity", you notice that I do not restrict it to structures, but include processes also. The three I mentioned are all irreducibly complex, irreducibly interlinked processes. Maybe I need to use another term, because every paper I read on the subject mentioned structures, but I have never restricted my use of that term to structures. (But then English is not my first language)
I would still love to see the list of faith-busting contradictions in the Bible, so I repeat my request here. I will not insist in debating it with you, I am just genuinly curious.
You may find it strange that I am having difficulty with accepting God as "supernatural". To me He is very "natural", but I will not debate this perception on this or any other thread.
For me, I must have a very good, logical reason for my faith. Regarding the Bible, I had first to find in it verifyable facts that the writer could not possibly have known or figured out through personal observation or reasoning on his own. (I listed a couple in th post.) I used to be scared of bridges; now I have faith in them because none have collapsed while I am crossing it.
I have faith that it will rain like crazy every October in Jamaica because that always happens.
I have never believed the teaching that we have an immortal soul, because I was shown no reasonable evidence.
I don't believe that persons are punished in any firy hell; first for the same reason, then because I saw contrary evidence.
I used to believe that all species of life we now see were all sepatately created. The evidences shown to me have caused me to adjust that belief. However I have not been shown sufficient evidence to conclude that it is even reasonable to conclude that all life on this planet have one single, common ancestor.
If you truly believe this, then you have not understood what a scientific theory is. Therefor our conversation on the Theory of Evolution can go no further. We would be at an impasse. However, I would be interested to know what "theories" specifically you have relegated to being hypothesis.
Regarding the belief of some scientists in god: Their belief is just that, a belief, not a theory! Besides, it wouldn't matter if all 7 billion people on the Earth believed in god. The fact that they believe does not make it true. At one time, long ago, all people on the Earth (or at least most of them) believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Did that make them right?? Fortunately, science is self correcting, and we now know that Earth is not the center of the universe.
In any case, those scientists that you say believe in god for very good reasons, may indeed have their own personal belief system, but NONE of them can provide a shred of validated, scientific evidence for the existence of god. This is contrary to what they may believe! If they could, then they would have to come up with a hypothesis and then suggest a way to obtain further observations, do additional testing, and submit their hypothesis to the rest of the scientific community for rigorous analysis. And this is where each and every one of them have failed to date!
I don't understand why you think that the chemical interactions of DNA, etc., are not reducible. All cellular activity is chemical, correct? And why, specifically do you think that the double helix of DNA is not reducible?
Each nucleotide in a DNA molecule has one of four nitrogenous bases: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine. The first two are called purine bases because their structure consists of two rings of atoms. The latter two are known as pyrimidine bases, since they have a single ring of atoms. RNA has three of the same nucleotides, but instead of thymine, RNA has uracil, another pyrimidine base.
So, you have all those simpler components of DNA and RNA. RNA has been shown to be a precursor to the development of DNA. Each of their components have been found in nature apart from the larger more complex structures of DNA and RNA.
As I said previously!: I have no faith-busting contradictions in the Bible. They are simply contradictions and incongruities. "Faith-busting" is YOUR word, not mine!
God is not natural in the scientific sense. If he was, then we could experiment on him and test for his presence or absence. But since Christianity believes that he is omnipresent, then there is simply no way to do an experiment to find out for sure. A Scientific experiment, I mean!
God supposedly has properties that can not be found in nature. Therefor, in the scientific sense, he would indeed be classed as supernatural. But more to the point of it all: Science simply has no NEED to inject god into any of its equations, so to speak. Science works just fine without using god as an explanation. If you have some specific examples of where you think god is necessary to explain something then list them by all means.
Simply because there are no good theories on abiogenesis does not mean that there will never be any good theories. Nor does it mean that we need to use god as an explanation. In this case, god would not be an explanation at all, not a scientific or logical explanation. Instead it would simply be a copout and would beg the question: well, how exactly did he start life from non-life?
So using god this way is NOT an explanation. It would be like ancient man going "Wow, that is some really fantastic lightning I see in the sky! There are no good theories to explain it. Therefor, god must be the explanation." As you can see, this is not explanatory in any way. Because it would beg the question, "well, how exactly does god make that lightning?"
But momma told me he was real.
Gary is a good man ..and we are friends. he is a very smart friend that puts up with me but I never shove GOD down his throat.. One day I would love to look at the stars with Gary and talk our heads off on the universe..oh after our seafood dinner of course....
You're a great person to debate with. Like Korak I won't push God down your throat. Because like him, I think you're a really smart guy after all and expect that you do not have a closed mind.
The fact that I don't agree with a theory even after pouring over the evidence merely shows that two humans, using the same evidence, come up with different opinions. Even the scientists arrive at conflicting conclusions. I have read them.
Like many of the evolutionists, I am having a hard time constructing at a plausible time-line on a lot of the stages of the supposed evolution.
Here is an article that is fascinating to me, and you may find surprising: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab It is from the LiveScience site. I think you would enjoy it!
Regarding birds descending from dinosaurs, here are another couple of articles you may find of use: Scientists hail new species of feathered dinosaurs and from Science News: Feather-covered dinosaur fossils found.
To date there are just too many similarities between some types of dinosaurs and modern birds. By the way, modern birds are technically warm blooded reptiles. I would love to hear the contradictions you think there are regarding dinosaur-to-bird evolution.
But even if science has to admit that we don't know all of the specifics yet of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, or even if science ultimately finds that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, it would not disprove the Theory of Evolution in any way. It would only show that we need to investigate further to determine the correct path of evolution from "whatever" to birds.
It is, of course, possible that all life on Earth did not evolve from one common ancestor. There are other possibilities, including the scenario that only some life evolved from a common ancestor and that other life evolved from a different common ancestor - perhaps life arose in two or more "flavors", so to speak. Possible, but not likely. Genetics and DNA analysis only confirms the theory that all life today is related to all other life. Genetics and DNA similarities between apparently widely separated species are stunning to say the least.
Their qualifications usually only make me trust that the evidence was carefully collected and processed. My opinion is still not based on theirs. For instance, when I read Leaky's calculation of the probability of a self replicating neucleic acid forming spontainously, I did not accept the figure as accurate even though it would have reinforced my opinion that belief in abiogenesis is unreasonable. He used too many assumptions.
Also, I didn't say that I don't believe in evolution, I just don't believe in the current evolution theory.
I must admit that this confuses me! But to make a guess at what you mean, I will say this: There are TWO parts to Evolution Theory. The fist part is that evolution has happened and continues to happen today. This is as much a hard fact as anything in science can be. It is as much a fact as the fact that green plants use the process of photosynthesis for energy. The second part of the theory concerns the actual details of how evolution has proceeded and is proceeding. It's the second part that is often debated among scientists as they try to iron out all the details of the process and analyze the fossil record and such.
I do hope that it's the second part that you have quibbles with.
I will try to make a post of my own detailing the major reasons that I do not subscribe to any faith or religious belief with regard to Christianity. It will use mostly strict logic to demonstrate how the historical, traditional, biblical god of Christianity cannot possibly exist. The article will be private so that only you and I can comment without distraction. But it might be a few days - as I am now behind again in other Gather business.
In any case, I do appreciate our exchanges!!
WOW two independent thinkers on different poles!!!! I look forward to that article. You will add to my storehouse of knowledge.
". . . I do still contend that your religious beliefs constitute my definition of faith . . ." That may be just because you disagree with my conclusions. I am of the opinion that you are practicing "faith" as per your definition :-D) But that may be because I simply disagree with you conclusions.
You may find it surprizing, but religious people accuse me of not having any faith at all because I keep asking for evidence. "You question the Bible?" "Yes, prove to me that its from God." Blank stare. I had to provide myself with the evidence. Took years. Even examined other "holy books" for evidence of divine authorship. Found it only in the Bible, then lost faith in all religion as a result.
Took me years to develop faith in one that taught my "crazy" ideas.
But, much as I would like to continue this conversation, I simply cannot if you insist on calling science and logic a matter of faith just because you disagree with their conclusions. I do hope you take the time to study science more, in particular evolutionary science - it is apparently the only way you could understand your reasoning errors.
Please understand!! I disagree with your conclusions ONLY because your logic and reasoning is erroneous by the standards of science and logic,... and by the standards of a simple dictionary.
If you and I cannot even agree on the meanings of the basic terminology of science and logic (e.g., natural vs. supernatural, faith vs. evidence-based science, etc.), then there is no further point to our conversation. Particularly if you insist on redefining that basic terminology to suit your own tastes or demonstrate how you think god is natural or how you think you ought to be able to equate science and faith. Sorry, but it is just too patently absurd for me to waste time on anymore. I truly am disappointed.
My English apparently needs more refinement.
Again, I am not attempting to convert you, just to pick your brain. You have a lot of gems in it and digging it out takes great effort sometimes.
That's exactly what comes to my mind after reading ( most of) this thread.
I'm just so glad I don't rely on science to prove God to me./// Lonnie Ray Fowler
It really is unfortunate that it actually required an investigation based on scientific principles for me to believe, but that was what worked for me.
Gonna post on this again at another time and take more lumps, because I have read the links sent, and there are deficiencies in them. No atheist or believer likes when you point out contradictions or deficiences in their belief systems.
For instance I cannot work out a plausible time line for much of the evolution theory and when I tried to look it up, I noticed that scientists who are also trying are having the same difficulty. You should see the problems that exists in trying to work out when the human and chimpanzee branches are supposed to have separated.
Also I was told by my science teachers, both the ones who are evolutionists and those who were not, that we must go with the evidence until a better explanation or more evidence is available. This presents a problem, because some of the evidence points to a god, but the science teachers are not allowed to even mention that.
Beautifully written and well thought out. wonderful
So the drama was over here on the 10/02.