Speaking of confusion... (are you sure it's not pi?)

[beartheweak]

I want to address why there are so many different opposing views in... everything, but specifically beliefs in God. Note: I will only address the question of the Christian God's existence, so please, let's keep the God vs Allah (Islam context) vs Zeus arguments at bay until we can resolve there being the possibility of a God at all (though, I'm not ignorant enough to think that will ever come to pass). Also, let's try to not let this thread turn into reasons why we should rule out God and vice versa. Rather, I want this thread to simply be about reasons why there is so much confusion on one side or the other, or both. There are specific cases in which it would help to give an example of an argument/theory, so feel free to list those.

I assume the role of defending Christianity in my intentions below (in case it isn't obvious ).

There are many scientists and brilliant people that are constantly hands-on with the physical parts of the universe that believe a God had to have made it; yet, there are many scientists and brilliant people that believe a God wasn't necessary in the creation of the universe. How is it possible that something can seem so obvious to one person, and to someone else it seems that the truth is entirely the opposite? Why does each side so strongly believe the opposite of the other side? Better yet, why, if something seems so obvious to one side doesn't the other side submit and acknowledge the truth? And finally to use literal groups of people: why do atheists have such a hard time convincing theists there is no God and why do theists have such a hard time getting acceptance when explaining the impossibilities of there being no God? You would think that if something is truly obvious then surely it would be "common sense" and would be as simple of a choice as breathing free clean air rather than choosing to not breath at all and suffocating yourself (or passing out). This used to confuse me and for months, it caused a doubt in my mind. The bible gives us the answer to this (and I can narrow it down to one verse) but it's because we are all sinners and we can only be made righteous and wise when we demonstrate faith. This is that verse that says why there are atheists (and try to stomach reading it if you're an atheist so that I can explain how it could be true in just a moment after): Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart- there is no God." The bible says the ones that have made up their minds (that there is no God) are fools. It sounds like bias bigotry and even hypocrisy at first look (because I even admit there are intelligent atheists), doesn't it? I'll give you the answer that resolves this statement in just another moment. However, really what other reason is there that there are too extremely opposite beliefs in the world: those that believe in deity, and then those that don't? My answer that you've all been waiting for...: the reason there are atheists and theists is because of the sin of those that haven't believed in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for their sins. Sin blinds those that have no faith and they believe the lies they, and others, tell themselves (because "The heart is desperately wicked" as Jeremiah 17:9 puts it) and try to excuse any flaw in their belief or beat-around the bush (as it appears sometimes) in a way to avoid answering it (whether knowingly or unknowingly). Once you accept Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation, you no longer have to pay the price for your sins (and only one sin is necessary to put anyone in Hell, and according to the Bible- we have all sinned except for Jesus). My belief about this whole subject of confusion is also the belief of the bible- which, by the way, is something that atheists think some lunatics put together. To me, this whole subject seems like the most intelligent thing that was ever realized by humans- that being there are so many different opinions to important subjects. We know that everything only has one truth/answer (it would be a paradox if two opposite truths explain something at the same time, in this dimension) and all the sides of an argument can't all be right, in this dimension. The answer is sin and our humanly nature. Atheists don't have a reason for this that makes sense (unless you can prove me otherwise- and I genuinely want to know the flaws of this argument before using it in further debates). Atheists could call us fools as well, but if nothing is blinding us spiritually (since, to atheists, the spiritual realm doesn't exist), what is interfering with our logic to understand their arguments? Are all believers in deity lunatics? If so, atheists are going to have to open many many many more psychiatric hospitals. Either 80% to 90% of the world doesn't have the capacity to see atheists' logic (supposedly obvious and as easy as pie) or the entire human race is polluted with sin and only those who are redeemed can see the truth. I think, quite obviously, humans aren't literally dumb. I think that we're all capable of working out the process to logically determine what truth is and what truth isn't. The only plausible reason I've seen is sin and, because of it, we're all just blinded to some extent or another and can't determine how blind we are- this is why I believe we must rely on the Bible to tell us what the truth is. Once again, I also have my reasons for knowing that Christianity is the one true "religion", so let's save my time and work out this problem first.

Sources: 80%-90% theist population... Google it; and that's generous- considering some studies say only up to 2% in North America are Agnostic/Atheist.

[el ايمان]

There is confusion on the atheist side as to why theists continue to believe there is a God with no evidence.

[beartheweak]

Before I give my response, I want it to be known that evidence in the sense that they want it can't always be presented (for instance, I can't grab God by the foot and show him around to everyone else). Atheists know that there are flaws/issues, or as they call them, unworked problems (though I think it requires atheists to have faith that the flaws could one day be worked out with the theories in Abiogenesis, Evolution, and The Big Bang/universe origin by naturalistic means). Therefore, there isn't anymore evidence for those theories than there is for God. So atheists have to realize we can't always rely on witnessing evidence directly. Rather, we have to look at what is possible. Is that reasoning correct?

[el ايمان]

Before I give my response, I want it to be known that evidence in the sense that they want it can't always be presented (for instance, I can't grab God by the foot and show him around to everyone else).

Otherwise, it isn't really "evidence".

Atheists know that there are flaws/issues, or as they call them, unworked problems (though I think it requires atheists to have faith that the flaws could one day be worked out with the theories in Abiogenesis,

Abiogenesis has evidence pointing toward it. It has been demonstrated that inorganic compounds can transform into organic compounds under conditions similar to those of early Earth, therefore abiogenesis via a random, nonsupernatural event is theoretically possible. Until the God of Abraham is revealed, it should not be assumed to exist. It is supernatural, so as opposed to everything else in the world, it does not fit within the realms of modern science.

Evolution,

Evolution has been proven to exist. It's happening as we speak, and will continue to occur until the last life form dies.

and The Big Bang/universe origin by naturalistic means).

I won't comment on this because I'm not a theoretical astrophysicist like some of the members of this board, but judging from the threads I've seen since joining, the beginning of the universe as we know it has a philosophical explanation that does not conflict with modern science. The same cannot be said of God.

Therefore, there isn't anymore evidence for those theories than there is for God.

See above.

So atheists have to realize we can't always rely on witnessing evidence directly.

In most cases we can, and in the rest of the cases there is already a scientific explanation that isn't "God did it".

Rather, we have to look at what is possible. Is that reasoning correct?

No. An invisible pink unicorn that has properties which prevent it from being revealed to other living creatures under any circumstances is also possible. It is not rational to believe that it exists. There might be a rare species of parasitic snake living inside your right aorta. Maybe you can't sense it because it is so minuscule that it doesn't disrupt your heartbeat noticeably, and maybe it releases chemicals that actually improve your blood flow. Perhaps these chemicals are undetectable in a tox screen, and it's possible that the snake won't show up on any radiologic scans. Should you believe it exists?

[beartheweak]

Otherwise, it isn't really "evidence".

Exactly, and there is just as little "evidence" pointing towards the Big Bang, Evolution, and Abiogenesis. You see, we, as humans, only have theories. Without knowing the entire process or pieces to the puzzle, we can just guess to fill in the gaps. With your process of elimination ("Otherwise it isn't really 'evidence'"), and because abiogenesis lacks completion (in the sense of a full explanation for how abiogenesis is the answer to the origin of life) your theory is as worthless to Unbiased Joe as mine is to him.

That being said, you exercise faith when believing abiogenesis is the answer to the origin of life. For all you know, there could be a step required by abiogenesis that's impossible to replicate naturally, or has basically impossible chances. Probably not to your surprise, there is indeed a step like that- it's what needs to happen immediately after the "organic compounds" are randomly created and what makes this step so difficult is the absurd amount of probability of it happening: Irreducible Complexity (Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) of the simplest living organism that doesn't require existing host cells/organisms to parasite from.

Thousands of parts are required for bacteria to operate. These parts have to be randomly created at the same period in time, with all the parts, in the correct place, and the organism must have the ability to replicate itself. Furthermore, we aren't even just talking about thousands of gooey, simple parts. Each part has a role and is of extreme complexity. As put by someone else: "Most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the minimum functions necessary for life. ... even though the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing under 10 to the –12th (power) grams, each bacterium is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world". It truly is far more complex than anything we have ever built. It can be understood that it's even more complex than a tornado going through a junk yard, picking up millions of pieces, sculpting them, and dropping all of the correct size, correct material, correctly placed pieces at the right time, one on top of another and resulting with a jet plane that is fully functional including software. It is estimated that the chance of this step in abiogenesis happening is 1 in 10 with 119,879 zeros after it. Even if those estimates are wrong, it's still pretty obvious that this step of putting the organic compounds together to form something as complex as a bacterium is basically impossible. If faith is going to be exercised, at least don't put it in something as silly as abiogenesis. Note that abiogenesis is being made fun of, not you.

Evolution has been proven to exist. It's happening as we speak, and will continue to occur until the last life form dies.

I, as well as many reputable people, disagree. Unless you want to shed some light on how evolution has been "proven to exist", I won't spend time explaining all of the flaws with it.

the beginning of the universe as we know it has a philosophical explanation that does not conflict with modern science. The same cannot be said of God.

If you're referring to the Big Bang theory, the problem with that is it doesn't (and can't possibly) have an explanation for where all of the matter came from that was necessary for the "Point of Singularity" to explode with in the first place. If nothing existed before the universe was created, where did all of the material come form that was inside of that point of singularity? Also, what could have possibly caused the Point of Singularity to explode? Scientists have no good reason for this, but still assure us there is a reason- they just don't know yet what it could be. It seems like they're exercising their faith muscles to me.

In Genesis of the Bible, we are told that God literally created material, light, and space (AKA, the universe). Atheists love to say something to me along the lines of "Well if God created the universe, what created God?". I love answering this because I have developed my own theory of how he could have possibly done this. Imagine Tom lives in a 2D world (for hypothetical purposes). Tom is a square. Imagine also that Sally lives in that 2D world and she is a circle. If Tom and Sally were to look at each other, all they would see is an infinitely thin line. They would have no way of comprehending what they actually look like from a 3D world perspective because they don't have the benefit of being able to see layers of (X,Y) stacked on top of each other to create the 3rd dimension, Z. If you and I looked at Tom and Sally that are in their 2D world, we would see them as a square and a circle, and can even pan around them to see the head-on view, the top-view, and the bottom-view. We can see the things literally inside of Tom and Sally that they themselves cannot.. A 3D universe has immensely more complexities and different laws and physics that it is governed by. Now how much more complex could a 4D realm be and the capabilities of the beings that live in it? We have no way of understanding it- just as 2D "beings" have no way of understanding 3 Dimensional objects or beings. It is believed that time (the forward progression of events in layers) didn't even exist until the universe existed because there was absolutely NOTHING before the universe existed (how could it exist?). In God's realm, there is no time because he is timeless. Therefore, if God experiences our 3D time as the same instant in his universe (and everything as the same instant) then he has to be the same personality and being all throughout our progression of time (which is exactly what the Bible leads us to believe).

Also, it's interesting that God reveals to us in the Bible that "For a thousand years (for humans) ... is like a watch in the night (to God)" further agreeing with my theory. Also, one side note- the more a human matures/grows/gains intelligence, the faster time seems to progress to that individual. In the same way, God is so much more intelligent than we are (if he even has a limit to his knowledge and power), he sees time flash-by 1,095,000+ times faster than us, if the proportion given to us in the Bible is literal and a night is defined as 8 hours from Earth's perspective.

In most cases we can, and in the rest of the cases there is already a scientific explanation that isn't "God did it".

Incorrect. We can't explain any of the underlying principles that govern the things we see. What is a chair made of? Atoms. What are Atoms made of? P/E/N. What are P/E/N made of? Quarks. What are Quarks made of? We don't know; *spew quantum mechanics theories here*. And for the complex theories that surround these types of questions, may I ask further- what makes that thing up, and how does it operate?

and in the rest of the cases there is already a scientific explanation that isn't "God did it".

"Scientific explanations" that are filled with unanswered questions... They aren't any better, and in fact are worse than God did it. "We don't know" is what atheists say in place of "God did it", is it not?

No. An invisible pink unicorn that has properties which prevent it from being revealed to other living creatures under any circumstances is also possible. It is not rational to believe that it exists. There might be a rare species of parasitic snake living inside your right aorta. Maybe you can't sense it because it is so minuscule that it doesn't disrupt your heartbeat noticeably, and maybe it releases chemicals that actually improve your blood flow. Perhaps these chemicals are undetectable in a tox screen, and it's possible that the snake won't show up on any radiologic scans. Should you believe it exists?

Very true, very true, my friend. You're right, a second element needs to be tested in the equation. If the theory at hand is also plausible/rational. Is my reasoning now correct in saying that we should be accepting theories as the standard when it is both possible AND rational? Shouldn't theories that have a required step that is impossible or irrational be thrown out of the accepted possible answers?

I think that the process used to decide truth and fiction should be defined because there is a right answer for everything. Making this (very obvious) definition of a logical process of elimination might make us famous! lol

[el ايمان]

Exactly, and there is just as little "evidence" pointing towards the Big Bang, Evolution, and Abiogenesis.

There is a great deal more evidence pointing toward evolution (which is a fact) and abiogenesis; again, I'm not educated about astrophysics, so I'll leave that to someone else on the forum to contest.

You see, we, as humans, only have theories. Without knowing the entire process or pieces to the puzzle, we can just guess to fill in the gaps. With your process of elimination ("Otherwise it isn't really 'evidence'"), and because abiogenesis lacks completion (in the sense of a full explanation for how abiogenesis is the answer to the origin of life) your theory is as worthless to Unbiased Joe as mine is to him.

Actually, my answer would be infinitely better to Unbiased Joe than yours. Enough research has been put into abiogenesis to show that it is a possible beginning to life. Saying that "God did it" doesn't answer anyone's questions. Unbiased Joe doesn't know for sure that God did anything, and it has not been demonstrated that anything elicits a response from God. However steep the odds are that everything would align correctly, abiogenesis is at least a logically consistent theory. "God did it", in contrast, has no logical progression.

That being said, you exercise faith when believing abiogenesis is the answer to the origin of life. For all you know, there could be a step required by abiogenesis that's impossible to replicate naturally,

Scientifically speaking, there is no reason to believe that there is a step within abiogenesis that cannot occur naturally; it's already been shown that things like amino acids can arise in high-energy conditions. It isn't good enough to say, "well there may be a naturally impossible step", because that postulates supernaturality, which is unable to be tested by humans as a rule.

or has basically impossible chances.

An oxymoron. Anything with a "chance" is possible, much moreso if that "chance" can be explained logically.

Probably not to your surprise, there is indeed a step like that- it's what needs to happen immediately after the "organic compounds" are randomly created and what makes this step so difficult is the absurd amount of probability of it happening: Irreducible Complexity (Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) of the simplest living organism that doesn't require existing host cells/organisms to parasite from.

Thousands of parts are required for bacteria to operate. These parts have to be randomly created at the same period in time, with all the parts, in the correct place, and the organism must have the ability to replicate itself. Furthermore, we aren't even just talking about thousands of gooey, simple parts. Each part has a role and is of extreme complexity. As put by someone else: "Most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the minimum functions necessary for life. ... even though the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing under 10 to the –12th (power) grams, each bacterium is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world". It truly is far more complex than anything we have ever built. It can be understood that it's even more complex than a tornado going through a junk yard, picking up millions of pieces, sculpting them, and dropping all of the correct size, correct material, correctly placed pieces at the right time, one on top of another and resulting with a jet plane that is fully functional including software. It is estimated that the chance of this step in abiogenesis happening is 1 in 10 with 119,879 zeros after it. Even if those estimates are wrong, it's still pretty obvious that this step of putting the organic compounds together to form something as complex as a bacterium is basically impossible. If faith is going to be exercised, at least don't put it in something as silly as abiogenesis. Note that abiogenesis is being made fun of, not you.

Likewise, it should not be to your surprise that Irreducible complexity as used by intelligent design proponents does not disprove abiogenesis. All it does is assert that there is a slim chance of abiogenesis occurring at a given moment, which is not something that real scientists have tried to lie about.

I, as well as many reputable people, disagree. Unless you want to shed some light on how evolution has been "proven to exist", I won't spend time explaining all of the flaws with it.

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. It exists by definition. Arguing that evolution does not exist is like arguing that every human is exactly the same, both genotypically and phenotypically.

If you're referring to the Big Bang theory

I'm not.

[bullcaca theory]

Your theory is bullcaca. There is absolutely no point in arguing that a scientifically abstract idea [which can eventually be determined to be reasonably possible or not] is less valid than a supernatural idea [which is not based in science and which can never be shown to be true or false].

Science: Well, if we take into account X and Y theories which do not conflict with science as we know it, Z is a possibility.
Your theory: We cannot fathom the realm I say that God exists in, therefore God exists and is more valid than science.

Incorrect. We can't explain any of the underlying principles that govern the things we see. What is a chair made of? Atoms. What are Atoms made of? P/E/N. What are P/E/N made of? Quarks. What are Quarks made of? We don't know; *spew quantum mechanics theories here*. And for the complex theories that surround these types of questions, may I ask further- what makes that thing up, and how does it operate?

It is not incorrect. "We don't know" caused us to create new technologies so that we could discover molecules, and discover atoms, and discover subatomic structures. We can explain the interactions between molecules that give a chair its properties, and we can explain the interactions between atoms to give those molecules their properties. Just because we don't know everything about subatomic structures yet doesn't mean that we don't have tentative scientific explanations that we try to improve and substantiate. If we stopped exploring and just said "God did it", we wouldn't even know about atoms.

"Scientific explanations" that are filled with unanswered questions... They aren't any better, and in fact are worse than God did it. "We don't know" is what atheists say in place of "God did it", is it not?

Except that rational people don't stop at "We don't know". "We don't know" prompts people to think about natural wonders and go to great lengths to uncover their secrets. It is not an assertion at all, whereas "God did it" is an assertion. "We don't know if there is a relationship between a circle's diameter and its circumference" is the reason we have Pi. It is blatantly superior to "God did it" in terms of problem solving.

Very true, very true, my friend. You're right, a second element needs to be tested in the equation. If the theory at hand is also plausible/rational. Is my reasoning now correct in saying that we should be accepting theories as the standard when it is both possible AND rational? Shouldn't theories that have a required step that is impossible or irrational be thrown out of the accepted possible answers?

I think that the process used to decide truth and fiction should be defined because there is a right answer for everything. Making this (very obvious) definition of a logical process of elimination might make us famous! lol

Which means no further attention should be given to creationism or intelligent design.

[beartheweak]

There is a great deal more evidence pointing toward evolution (which is a fact) and abiogenesis

I don't think you understand the difference between evidence that matters and evidence that is worthless. Regarding abiogenesis, since that seems to be more of what we're talking about, the so-called factual evidence you keep bringing up is like this analogy. We observe that the moon has craters, and with that, the primitive human race comes up with two main suggestions. 1) There is an alien race that dug them for artistic purposes or they are hoping to fill the wholes with water and 2) meteors caused the craters. Now, pretend this primitive human race has never seen these "meteors" before. What you're saying in equivalent to this analogy is that the "evidence" we have are the craters that exist on the moon. Now, I would capitalize all the letters of this next sentence if I could without making it look like I'm yelling at you, ha. But... that is not significant enough evidence to point towards either of the two theories (aliens vs meteors).

Actually, my answer would be infinitely better to Unbiased Joe than yours. Enough research has been put into abiogenesis to show that it is a possible beginning to life.

It is not possible. It wouldn't be wise for anyone to bet their life on the chances of abiogenesis happening in this one-time universe. Or would you now have to assume, as atheists tend to do a lot, that there are multiple universes or a contracting/expanding cycle of a universe. The latter is already widely accepted as impossible (space is expanding at an accelerating rate). Regarding the former, Hey! I guess if you want to have faith in, again, another assumption in order to make atheist theories look more plausible, then go for it. I will continue believing in a God, which does actually make more sense; and hopefully our conversation will continue going long enough for me to explain all of the reasons why I claim so.

Saying that "God did it" doesn't answer anyone's questions.

Yes it does. Here's why, "God did it" is the equivalent of saying "Abiogenesis" did it. They are both short answers. Then the questioner asks "how" God/Abiogenesis did it. Abiogenesis runs into the problem with probability and it is slightly less than impossible for those that want to stress about me being technically correct and (yes, I dare say it) flat-out impossible (on top of all of the other random things that are required for life- alignment of the planets around the sun, gravitational pull physics, temperature, creation of all life forms, etc.- that just all so happen to be present here for us on Earth). You are wanting it to be more difficult to figure out. Which is fine. I also am intrigued with the creation of life scientifically (although I believe we were made differently from your views). So, if you want a scientific explanation of how God was able to pick up clay with his manifest hands and form humans, for example, we already know that anything can be changed from one element to another with adding and taking away from the P/E/N structure of the atom. Therefore, if the right technology is present, we can also change any element into anything else.

There are cases of teleportation (going from point A to point B without actually traveling through the in-between distance) in the bible. We now have successfully teleported matter (albeit immensely small, lol) a matter of a short distance (a meter, if I recall). So we know it's possible. I think that it's great to spend time and resources in looking into science. But I also feel that the evidence that is found through science is in contrast with the beliefs of atheists (who discard anything that opposes their beliefs in abiogenesis/evolution or come up with a "solution" that has impossible steps required). I don't get what's so hard to understand about God being able to create people, teleportation powers, etc. when he has enough power to create the universe.

Unbiased Joe doesn't know for sure that God did anything, and it has not been demonstrated that anything elicits a response from God.

How about the creation of everything we have in the universe (including the universe itself) from absolute nothingness? This is the easiest thing to explain that makes God necessary. He created a realm/dimension/universe and everything in it, just as I can program a video game into existence that depends on our dimension to be sustained.

However steep the odds are that everything would align correctly, abiogenesis is at least a logically consistent theory

So, the unimaginably slight chances of abiogenesis aren't a set back at all to you are they? I guess using your logic, I can say that my great (100 times) grandmother's body is still alive today (but in hiding) and is 3,000 years old by natural means/primitive surgery (of course, her brain would be dead, but her body lives on) and the process of transplanting body parts in place of her old ones. In this case, you are forced to say that it's possible and it's no big deal that it's greatly improbable. This reasoning is absurd. If atheists' science interpretations and logic were all about going on the 1/10^120,000 chances (and similar figures) each time as the answer to evolution, abiogenesis, and the creation of matter/universe then it explains why there are so few of you.

Scientifically speaking, there is no reason to believe that there is a step within abiogenesis that cannot occur naturally; it's already been shown that things like amino acids can arise in high-energy conditions. It isn't good enough to say, "well there may be a naturally impossible step", because that postulates supernaturality, which is unable to be tested by humans as a rule.

Going from amino acids to the complex structure of DNA is the impossible step. You seem to be hoping that something in nature could actually lay out a whole jet airplane (or city for that matter). Why can't we find nature constantly and naturally creating automobiles, wrist watches, Mona Lisa paintings, or anything with a complex design for that matter? Why was it only a simple living organism with equal probability? This is an important question regarding the importance of discrediting abiogenesis based on probability. There is an infinite number of possible configurations of metal and plastic and wood (general materials) and pieces and sizes of pieces that could be made into materials of complex design every day by natural means (according to your logic) so why don't we see this happening even once? And why (in the rhetorical sense), when this happened to occur, an organism was created and not a truck? Just for giggles, I can already predict that you're going to say "Well a truck could have formed somewhere in the universe before an organism was created here on Earth". To that response, I have no answer but to beat my head on the keyboard because it completely misses the point that in the time Earth has been here and with infinite things of complex design it could possibly create why don't we have a whole lot of natural, randomly created designed things (like wristwatches, trucks, or even unknown possible complex mechanical designs)?

An oxymoron. Anything with a "chance" is possible, much moreso if that "chance" can be explained logically.

Fine, call out technicalities. But to refute this without much more effort, I think I do a good job in the above paragraph of explaining why this slight chance can be considered impossible (especially in the universe' short time frame).

Science: Well, if we take into account X and Y theories which do not conflict with science as we know it, Z is a possibility.

The problem is that account X and Y do conflict with science in at least evolution. My main problem with abiogenesis is the improbability and still possibility of it requiring a supernatural step. My problems with evolution are the same as abiogenesis' problems, plus general lack of proof that it's even occurring or that it ever occurred.

Your theory: We cannot fathom the realm I say that God exists in, therefore God exists and is more valid than science.

Give me a better (more plausible and possible) alternative. Atheist theories suffer both impossible and improbability. At least the God theory doesn't suffer from either; rather some seem to think it suffers from lack of evidence... eventhough the most obvious evidence is the fact that we have stuff in this universe and at some point, it didn't exist. Your fateful opinion is yours to make, but I will agree with the only logically possible answer.

Which means no further attention should be given to creationism or intelligent design.

Just the opposite. No further attention should be given to building atheistic theories which require taking patch-work from one part of the theory and putting it on another part of the theory (leaving, still an exposed hole, only in a different place) if I were to compare the theories to air ducts.

Furthermore, because you agree that "theories that have a required step that is impossible or irrational be thrown out of the accepted possible answers", you have to now forfeit belief in abiogenesis and evolution or you are contradicting your logic. Irrational/improbable are different from impossible and just mean that it is unlikely to happen, i.e. abiogenesis/evolution.

[Dave In Canada]

Give me a better (more plausible and possible) alternative. Atheist theories suffer both impossible and improbability. At least the God theory doesn't suffer from either; rather some seem to think it suffers from lack of evidence... eventhough the most obvious evidence is the fact that we have stuff in this universe and at some point, it didn't exist. Your fateful opinion is yours to make, but I will agree with the only logically possible answer.

The God theory is meaningless. Just because the human mind can create such a concept of a creator doesn't mean that one exists. The only logical answer is nature. There is no reason to invoke some magical unobserved entity with attributes that can never be proven or disproven to exist. When all you have is faith that such an entity exists the value of that as being some kind of truth is worthless.

[Maryjane]

To the OP~

Please see my blog post on the burden of proof.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Going from amino acids to the complex structure of DNA is the impossible step. You seem to be hoping that something in nature could actually lay out a whole jet airplane (or city for that matter). Why can't we find nature constantly and naturally creating automobiles, wrist watches, Mona Lisa paintings, or anything with a complex design for that matter? Why was it only a simple living organism with equal probability? This is an important question regarding the importance of discrediting abiogenesis based on probability. There is an infinite number of possible configurations of metal and plastic and wood (general materials) and pieces and sizes of pieces that could be made into materials of complex design every day by natural means (according to your logic) so why don't we see this happening even once? And why (in the rhetorical sense), when this happened to occur, an organism was created and not a truck? Just for giggles, I can already predict that you're going to say "Well a truck could have formed somewhere in the universe before an organism was created here on Earth". To that response, I have no answer but to beat my head on the keyboard because it completely misses the point that in the time Earth has been here and with infinite things of complex design it could possibly create why don't we have a whole lot of natural, randomly created designed things (like wristwatches, trucks, or even unknown possible complex mechanical designs)?

The problem with the argument from irreducible complexity is that it assumes that there’s nothing simpler than a modern cell-like being that can possibly engage in self-replication and thus, evolutionarily-driven reproduction.

Unfortunately for your argument, this is not the case. Small libraries of biologically-inspired molecules have been observed to undergo self-replication and “selection,” processes. In other words – things far, far simpler (and thus far more likely to occur spontaneously) than a cellular organism are capable of self-replicative processes.

In addition, the arguments from irreducible complexity, as used by proponents of intelligent design aimed at “disproving,” evolution are easily and unequivocably refuted. If you doubt that this is true, I encourage you to read my posts here (http://www.volconvo.com/forums/scien...design-10.html); that way I may not have to recapitulate every argument and link.

[Jack]

So, if you want a scientific explanation of how God was able to pick up clay with his manifest hands and form humans, for example, we already know that anything can be changed from one element to another with adding and taking away from the P/E/N structure of the atom. Therefore, if the right technology is present, we can also change any element into anything else.

So Newton was right to believe in alchemy?

[beartheweak]

So Newton was right to believe in alchemy?

I'll leave the definition to you. All I'm saying is it is possible to change Oxygen into Lead, with the correct technology. If we could have technology to control this process, it's possible. In fact, any technological advancement is possible, given time.