Hundreds of Proofs of God's existance Options

[THECHICKEN]

Man, i bet god is pissed...

[False Dude]

an asteroid doesnt need to hit the earth for elements to combine in nature. does it all the time. we can observe these events. we can also see mutations in genes and those mutations pass on to offspring and appear in their physical being. the study of the brain - brain makes humans humans right? the brain for being so entirely complex is mapped out and fairly well known. the evolution of the human brain from "lower" organisms is so well supported there is no room for creationism.
theres no proof in science but theres a whole bunch of well supported theory and law to support it

[Billy]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70315161035.htm
another fun article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70215181425.htm

So was the link I posted an adequate source?

[chook]

they know how it was created

the 4 elements that are essential to human development and brain
Ca, Na, K, Cl - its not by happenstance that these are 4 elements most abundant in the earths oceans. evolution uses what is most about around to develope life. you cant have movement, thought, growth, action, or a brain without those 4. you cant ever prove anything in science but that a whole shit ton of support for evolution
the creation of life took forever you cant replicate evolution in a lab in a human lifespan

I was thinking it was silicon, but its second
Element Approximate
% by weight
Oxygen
46.6
Silicon
27.7
Aluminum
8.1
Iron
5.0
Calcium
3.6
Sodium
2.8
Potassium
2.6
Magnesium
2.1
All others
1.5

Element Abundance

[The Fanatic]

So was the link I posted an adequate source?

The one from Techsans? No

I mean I agree with what he was saying. My main point is that science has yet to create life in a laboratory. Does not mean that it can not or will not. it just has not yet.

an asteroid doesnt need to hit the earth for elements to combine in nature. does it all the time.

Let me rephrase. Asteroids and Comets could have delivered some of the necessary ingredients to form life such as water, sugars, etc.

Source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plan...gar_011219.html

[The Fanatic]

an asteroid doesnt need to hit the earth for elements to combine in nature. does it all the time. we can observe these events. we can also see mutations in genes and those mutations pass on to offspring and appear in their physical being. the study of the brain - brain makes humans humans right? the brain for being so entirely complex is mapped out and fairly well known. the evolution of the human brain from "lower" organisms is so well supported there is no room for creationism.
theres no proof in science but theres a whole bunch of well supported theory and law to support it

Whoa wait one second


I am an atheist and I believe that evolution is the most comprehensive theory for explaining how life changed overtime. These are my main points:


1. Science and religion are trying to explain two different things (science the WHY and religion that HOW). One is based on scientifically tested theories the other on faith vested in a religious text or dogma. As a result, creationism can not be considered a valid scientific theory since it does not even hold to basic scientific standards of evaluation and testing.

2. My main criticism was with fundamentalist Christians who seem to want to literally interpret the bible and feel that evolution is threatening their faith. I believe that Evolution can be compatible with a belief in god because god could have initiated evolution for his grand design and plan. While I do not personally believe in this, I do think it is more reasonable than labeling evolution as a"dangerous" threat to Christian dogma. (In the same way that the church refused to believe that the earth was not the center of the galaxy).

3. While it is possible to create "artificial life" in a laboratory (converting lifeless matter into life via human technology), this has not yet been fully realized.


Are we all crystal clear now?

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Mar 30 2007, 10:04 PM

[Billy]

The links he posted were the important part.

[False Dude]

i know you and i supported the same idea i was just talking. i really enjoy evolutionary psychology/neuroscience so i like thinking about it

[Seussninja]

Believe whatever the hell you want just don't bother me about it

[Seussninja]

evolution does counter what the Bible says about Creation. The Bible says the earth was created in seven days. Now, if we take that as seven literal days and in those seven days god created birds, reptiles, breathing things, fish, etc then that would go against the idea that we evolved from apes. On the other hand, a minimalist idea of evolution can co-exist with Creation in that yes, things have changed over time. People are bigger. There are more races. Blah blah blah. Core Creationism and Evolution are not compatible.

and I swear if Griesux or whatever were to correct my spelling, i think I would snap. That, along with the "your mom" jokes is getting old.

okay before i thought your anger was just sarcasm but now i have my doubts, muffy cakes.

Here, smiles around

[The Fanatic]

The links he posted were the important part.

Which one says that life was artificially created in a laboratory?

One of the links he posted regarding the Miller-Urey experiment:

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Mar 31 2007, 09:45 AM

[Mommy]

"I guess it doesnt matter if she corrects MY spelling.... but more just everyone in general. Its just getting a little annoying. We get it. She is spelling bee champion. "

you know you seem to complain alot....does that make you the bitching champion?

honestly, you saying that doesnt even bother me. I was just saying its annoying. Yes, I am the forum bitch. That was established a while back.

[Mommy]

Jessica I don't think you understand

Evolution DOES NOT explain how life originated/ (was) created. And since when would seven days to god equal the days of men? If this god is an immortal, everlasting, omnipotent and eternal being, I would assume that a day could be anywhere from 1 billion years to a nano second. Let me ask another question, do you take every word in the bible literally?

I know evolution does not explain how life orginated. It explains the progression of life. However, according to evolution, species developed from other species and so on and so on. Single-celled organisms started it all. That is not the case with Creationism. God created the actual birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, humans, amphibians... blah blah blah

[Jim]

1. Science and religion are trying to explain two different things (science the WHY and religion that HOW). One is based on scientifically tested theories the other on faith vested in a religious text or dogma. As a result, creationism can not be considered a valid scientific theory since it does not even hold to basic scientific standards of evaluation and testing.

Wha...? Science explains the Why and Religion the How...? Huh? Why are many religious debates based around the concept of "Why are we here"?

[The Fanatic]

I know evolution does not explain how life orginated. It explains the progression of life. However, according to evolution, species developed from other species and so on and so on. Single-celled organisms started it all. That is not the case with Creationism. God created the actual birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, humans, amphibians... blah blah blah

What if god used evolution to "create" the animals?

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Mar 31 2007, 07:51 PM