Fallacies in Christianity

[mc4]

This is a fine example of someone who can't even see past their own bull****.

Thank you for demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about either physics or evolutionary biology. I think it's safe to say that I've literally forgotton more about these fields of science than you could ever hope to know, judging from your wanton ability to copy and paste random **** from Answers in Genitals.

As for the creationist lie about how evolution somehow disrupts the LoTD--it's complete and utter poppycock. There's a trillion times more entropy flux available in the universe than necessary for evolution. Yay for struggling through Physics 101.

And has it ever crossed your feeble little mind that creation is a direct violation of the first law? Try, try again.

Creation is not a direct violation of the first law, and no i don't copy and paste I read. The laws of the universe only apply to everything that exists within the universe. If a being created the universe how would the laws of the universe apply to this being who created it ,especially if this being exists in a realm not visible and outside of the physical universe. I see you are good at bashing but are you good at explaining? Are the facts that I stated incorrect or out of date? Or are you just upset because someone who believes in creation isn't "brainwashed" and actually attempts to Go beyond what the bible says and tries to supplement it with actually scientific facts? By the way physics 101 is 100% applied meaning the majority is math dealing with problems such as equilibrium and buoyancy not with the things mentioned in my first comment (astrophysics etc)

 

[RDK]

Creation is not a direct violation of the first law, and no i don't copy and paste I read. The laws of the universe only apply to everything that exists within the universe. If a being created the universe how would the laws of the universe apply to this being who created it ,especially if this being exists in a realm not visible and outside of the physical universe. I see you are good at bashing but are you good at explaining? Are the facts that I stated incorrect or out of date? Or are you just upset because someone who believes in creation isn't "brainwashed" and actually attempts to Go beyond what the bible says and tries to supplement it with actually scientific facts? By the way physics 101 is 100% applied meaning the majority is math dealing with problems such as equilibrium and buoyancy not with the things mentioned in my first comment (astrophysics etc)

Violating the LoTD has everything to do with equilibrium. If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And where the hell are you getting all this garbage about God being invisible and outside of the physical universe? I'm sure that's not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible has a horrible track record of scientific impossibilities bordering on the asinine.

And I find it laughable that you label any of those points as "scientific fact".

 

[mc4]

Sorry for the double post... but an intellectual debate hardly calls for insulting another person for what he or she believes in. You shouldn't let your anger (what ever the reason) get the best of you, there is no reason not to be civilized here. Everyone has there own opinions and there is nothing you can do about it so why get upset and throw insults (not very good ones and slightly ignorant) around. Take it easy man. If you disagree then explain, its called debate hall not insult people for what they believe. Stop getting your panties in a bunch.

 

[mc4]

Violating the LoTD has everything to do with equilibrium. If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And where the hell are you getting all this garbage about God being invisible and outside of the physical universe? I'm sure that's not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible has a horrible track record of scientific impossibilities bordering on the asinine.

And I find it laughable that you label any of those points as "scientific fact".

Yes it is in the bible. The bible clearly states that God is invisible and cannot be seen. He isn't a part of our "physical universe". Here is the interesting thing about what you said. Yes the bible does have a track record of things that are scientifically impossible. But they are done by the being who created the universe and established all of its physical laws. It only makes sense to me that this being can bend or break these laws that he himself created... So yes the one who created and established the loTD can infact break these laws as he is powerful enough to create an entire universe. Yes they do have everything to do with equilibrium, which is why the universe is so very organized now. And why would it be laughable that I label any of the points I mentioned scientific facts? They are scientific facts. What facts have you stated. Can you prove to me how things began. Darwin titled his book "origin of the species" I believe. And yet he didn't explain the origin but only how he thought things developed. Can any modern science explain the origin, where everything came from. You are yourself are defying Thermal dynamics if you believe that everything created itself. Even if science could explain the big bang as a fact (once again i believe the big bang as a possibility but not that it came about on its own) it could never explain where the initially singularity came from. So then do you believe it created itself? You yourself must defy the loTD to believe that.

 

[manhunter098]

Yes it is in the bible. The bible clearly states that God is invisible and cannot be seen. He isn't a part of our "physical universe". Here is the interesting thing about what you said. Yes the bible does have a track record of things that are scientifically impossible. But they are done by the being who created the universe and established all of its physical laws. It only makes sense to me that this being can bend or break these laws that he himself created... So yes the one who created and established the loTD can infact break these laws as he is powerful enough to create an entire universe. Yes they do have everything to do with equilibrium, which is why the universe is so very organized now.

What is your evidence of an organized universe exactly. Sure the forces like gravity, your nuclear forces, the bonding of molecules, electrical fields, and all that stuff tend to create organization, but thats just the way things are as far as well can tell with science. And I wouldnt really even go so far as to say we live in a very organized universe even with these forces that tend to create organization, I mean if you think about big bang theory, things were likely a LOT more organized when all the matter in the universe was gathered together. Furthermore if god doesnt need something to create him I fail to see why all of the matter in our universe couldnt have simply always existed.

So basically, why couldnt things have always been that way, and my statement, just like god, is not falsifiable, so good luck trying to use science to prove me wrong.

 

[mc4]

What is your evidence of an organized universe exactly. Sure the forces like gravity, your nuclear forces, the bonding of molecules, electrical fields, and all that stuff tend to create organization, but thats just the way things are as far as well can tell with science. And I wouldnt really even go so far as to say we live in a very organized universe even with these forces that tend to create organization, I mean if you think about big bang theory, things were likely a LOT more organized when all the matter in the universe was gathered together. Furthermore if god doesnt need something to create him I fail to see why all of the matter in our universe couldnt have simply always existed.

So basically, why couldnt things have always been that way, and my statement, just like god, is not falsifiable, so good luck trying to use science to prove me wrong.

Well you make a good point above when you state that if God didn't create himself etc... However the difference is our material universe. God is beyond and more powerful than our Universe. If he created it than I can accept the fact that God himself didn't have a creator or vice versa. I realize that science can only explain so much and there is only so much that we as humans can comprehend. We can't truly comprehend something not having a beginning because we have beginnings and so does everything around us. I believe science has alot of answers, but not all. it takes faith to believe that God wasn't created, just as it takes faith to believe in the possibility of matter having always existed since neither can necessarily be "physically" proven. I think to suggest that this matter always existed goes against the laws that this matter itself would have eventually established as either a consequence of the universe it created, or the laws already in existence to create this universe. (some believe that all 4 forces were once unified as a "super force" in this original singularity and separated once it exploded to develop the universe.) I think the suggestion of matter having always been in existence has been a theory in the past but is refuted, however I would have to read more on that theory to give you a reason why.

And as far as the argument of organization one of the reasons why scientifically the universe is said to be organized is because of the way everything works together so perfectly within the universe. Whether something as small as an atom or something as large as a star, all forces and laws work together. I've even read quotes from physicists and other scientists that explained how amazed they were with the "organization" of the universe. Certainly credible sources I would think

 

[manhunter098]

Well you make a good point above when you state that if God didn't create himself etc... However the difference is our material universe. God is beyond and more powerful than our Universe. If he created it than I can accept the fact that God himself didn't have a creator or vice versa. I realize that science can only explain so much and there is only so much that we as humans can comprehend. We can't truly comprehend something not having a beginning because we have beginnings and so does everything around us. I believe science has alot of answers, but not all. it takes faith to believe that God wasn't created, just as it takes faith to believe in the possibility of matter having always existed since neither can necessarily be "physically" proven. I think to suggest that this matter always existed goes against the laws that this matter itself would have eventually established as either a consequence of the universe it created, or the laws already in existence to create this universe. (some believe that all 4 forces were once unified as a "super force" in this original singularity and separated once it exploded to develop the universe.) I think the suggestion of matter having always been in existence has been a theory in the past but is refuted, however I would have to read more on that theory to give you a reason why.

Well I wouldnt say that I really have faith that all matter in the universe has always existed, rather, given the information we have now thats just what I think is most likely, so its more like a gamble to me than faith.

 

[mc4]

Well I wouldnt say that I really have faith that all matter in the universe has always existed, rather, given the information we have now thats just what I think is most likely, so its more like a gamble to me than faith.

I see what you mean but the word "gamble" seems kind of like a way to get around it. If something can't be proven, or isn't yet proven then you must have faith to believe it. Faith is an expectation of something that can't be seen (or in our discussion physically proven). So basically it seems that you are replacing the term faith with gamble since the idea of matter always having been in existence (imo) can't be proven or (in your opinion) hasn't been proven. Faith isn't necessarily something that can only be applied with religion, we have to have faith in many things that haven't been proven yet but physically work everday. For example Dark Matter is currently a Theory, we can't prove it's existence yet. So since it can't be proven as a fact necessarily, then you must have faith to believe in its existence (especially since it can't be seen...)

 

[RDK]

We have absolutely no reason to believe God exists.

On the other hand, we have incredibly good reasons to believe Dark Matter exists.

You're stretching what faith actually is in both situations. It can't be applied in scientific terms; we either know something to be likely because the evidence says so, or it doesn't. And I hope you're not dull enough to tell me that the belief of God is remotely equal to anything in the realm of science, even the most unlikely possibility.

 

[manhunter098]

I see what you mean but the word "gamble" seems kind of like a way to get around it. If something can't be proven, or isn't yet proven then you must have faith to believe it. Faith is an expectation of something that can't be seen (or in our discussion physically proven). So basically it seems that you are replacing the term faith with gamble since the idea of matter always having been in existence (imo) can't be proven or (in your opinion) hasn't been proven. Faith isn't necessarily something that can only be applied with religion, we have to have faith in many things that haven't been proven yet but physically work everday. For example Dark Matter is currently a Theory, we can't prove it's existence yet. So since it can't be proven as a fact necessarily, then you must have faith to believe in its existence (especially since it can't be seen...)

Faith is more of an absolute. I dont deal in absolutes because that doesnt lead me to the correct answers. I suppose gamble is a bad way to put it. Its more like I think that this is probably the way that it is, but Im certainly not absolute in my certainty.

 

[arrowhead]

Well you make a good point above when you state that if God didn't create himself etc... However the difference is our material universe. God is beyond and more powerful than our Universe. If he created it than I can accept the fact that God himself didn't have a creator or vice versa.

god created the universe, so you accept that he didn't need a creator, but you insist that the universe must have been created? these explanations are completely ad hoc

I realize that science can only explain so much

science itself doesn't attempt to explain anything, so it cannot be limited in what it can explain. science a process for coming up with explanations.

We can't truly comprehend something not having a beginning because we have beginnings and so does everything around us.

you just made this up

I believe science has alot of answers, but not all. it takes faith to believe that God wasn't created, just as it takes faith to believe in the possibility of matter having always existed since neither can necessarily be "physically" proven.

yeah, it does take faith to believe matter always existed (scientists don't believe this anyways). too bad scientists will never say that they KNOW anything, unlike theists.

And as far as the argument of organization one of the reasons why scientifically the universe is said to be organized is because of the way everything works together so perfectly within the universe. Whether something as small as an atom or something as large as a star, all forces and laws work together. I've even read quotes from physicists and other scientists that explained how amazed they were with the "organization" of the universe. Certainly credible sources I would think

yeah, i'm amazed at how complex and organized matter can be too. do i start claiming there must be a god because of it? no. do physicists and scientists claim there's a god? no. not the sane ones anyhow

 

[mc4]

We have absolutely no reason to believe God exists.

On the other hand, we have incredibly good reasons to believe Dark Matter exists.

You're stretching what faith actually is in both situations. It can't be applied in scientific terms; we either know something to be likely because the evidence says so, or it doesn't. And I hope you're not dull enough to tell me that the belief of God is remotely equal to anything in the realm of science, even the most unlikely possibility.

Ok so here is an idea. Dark Matter isn't visible it can't be seen. God isn't visible, God can't be seen. We haven't the slightest Idea of what this "dark matter" is or what it does. Many people don't know anything about an "omnipotent" God (the same as we know nothing about dark matter it can't necessarily be physically proven the same as God can't necessarily be physically proven.) The term Dark Matter is applied to a concept of a large part of our universe that we believe makes up our universe but can't be even remotely explained and can't be seen. No i'm not stretching what faith is.
Faith- "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." (looks like a scientific term to me) That is one of the definitions on dictionary.com. So no it I did not stretch the meaning. To believe in something that can't be physically proven is faith. Science alone can't prove the origin of everything only it's gradual development. I takes faith to believe anything beyond that, so if you believe that things generated magically (which are against the laws of thermodynamics you yourself confirmed) would take faith since it can't be proven. Or if you believe things always existed takes faith since that can't be proven either. Either way to try to explain the origin of the universe you need faith whether you believe God did it, or if you believe that it came about on its own. Once again neither can be proven.


and to the above comment your clearly extremely biased in saying that a scientist who believes in God is insane and now you are just showing your ignorance. And you are talking in circles You just said that "science doesn't attempt to explain anything" then you said that "science is a process to explain things". Yes science does attempt to explain things, i seriously can't believe you just made that comment. And no I didn't make up the notion that we can't comprehend something not having a beginning. Has anything in our universe ever been proven to not have a beginning? (in our universe and not beyond such as the idea of God) Does it make sense to you for something to not have a beginning, clearly not if you don't think that it is possible for a creator of the universe to not have a beginning.

 

[manhunter098]

Well dark matter is very real, we can observe the gravitational effects of something that we cannot detect by other means, so we just called the stuff dark matter.

 

[arrowhead]

we can observe the gravitational effects of dark matter. seeing things isn't the only method of discovery. you can't see electrons

holy ****, faith is not scientific in the least bit. science is all about backing up claims with observations. faith is all about not doing that.

you are sooo ignorant about anything that has to do with science. i don't think it's worth responding to the rest of your post. do some research before you post

 

[mc4]

Well dark matter is very real, we can observe the gravitational effects of something that we cannot detect by other means, so we just called the stuff dark matter.

I totally agree that dark matter is real, my whole point was since it hasn't been proven yet (because it is still a theory) it takes faith to believe in it. And based on the definition of faith that I quoted from Dictionary.com faith can be applied to science.

and once again to the above comment look up the definition of faith or read my last post with the definition of faith. Faith is a belief in something that isn't proven and since science has many beliefs and ideas that aren't yet proven if you are to believe in these ideas you must have faith in them. Go read a dictionary before you try to call me ignorant.


Faith- "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." (looks like a scientific term to me) That is one of the definitions on dictionary.com.

 

[arrowhead]

faith cannot be applied to science. in dictionary.com the word is being applied to a scientist. scientists aren't science! and you can never PROVE anything. no real scientist will ever claim to know anything for certain.

 

[illinialex24]

I totally agree that dark matter is real, my whole point was since it hasn't been proven yet (because it is still a theory) it takes faith to believe in it. And based on the definition of faith that I quoted from Dictionary.com faith can be applied to science.

and once again to the above comment look up the definition of faith or read my last post with the definition of faith. Faith is a belief in something that isn't proven and since science has many beliefs and ideas that aren't yet proven if you are to believe in these ideas you must have faith in them. Go read a dictionary before you try to call me ignorant.

Right but just like how lunatics make their own beliefs that were refuted 100 years ago, it doesn't mean you take anything out of it. And you mistake science because in science nothing is 100% proven. We can't prove it in the future and you are showing your own ignorance here. Everything is a theory in science, but it is backed in many cases by huge amounts of research and support. Newton's 2nd law, F=MA has been disproved at quantum levels, and that was one of the most universally accepted theories. But it shows that nothing in science is proven. Evolution is backed by every and all credible scientific studies.

faith cannot be applied to science. in dictionary.com the word is being applied to a scientist. scientists aren't science! and you can never PROVE anything. no real scientist will ever claim to know anything for certain.

Pretty much true except faith can be applied to science. Just no meaningfully and with no proof whatsoever. Like intelligent design. There could be someone controlling evolutions path but since there is not way to prove it, it is outside of science even though faith was applied to science.

 

[arrowhead]

Faith- "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." (looks like a scientific term to me) That is one of the definitions on dictionary.com.

learn to read

look, i can do it too!

seriously though, you completely misunderstand either all of science, or the simple definition (or both). the definition isn't even correct, though i guess it will suffice for now

 

[mc4]

faith cannot be applied to science. in dictionary.com the word is being applied to a scientist. scientists aren't science! and you can never PROVE anything. no real scientist will ever claim to know anything for certain.

Faith- "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Are you serious if scientists couldn't prove things for certain then what is the point of science? Theories cease to be theories when they are consistently proven to work. If a theory every shows the slightest inconsistency then it remains theory and doesn't become scientific fact such as the speed of gravity on earth -9.81 m/s2. In simple terms in the above definition yes faith can be applied to science. The term faith just has bad stigma because of negative views about religion. Since God himself can't physically be proven the term faith is assigned inorder to believe in God. There are people such as yourself I would assume that find that idea of God crazy since it can't physically be proven. And yet many things in our physical universe can't be physically proven. Einstein was an outcast when he proposed relativity. At first he couldn't explain it but knew that it had to exist. People thought he was crazy. He by the definition above, had faith in relativity before he could prove it. Then he proved it and no longer needed faith because it was consistently proven in all tests done by his scientific experiments. (relativity was also proved by the experiments of others) And I don't believe that you can speak for every scientist. yes things can be proven. The speed of light is a testament to that. Light will forever travel 186000 miles per second it has been proven.


and to the above comment yes it is correct. Btw ILLINIAX... one of the purposes of physics is to be able to predict any event in the universe, whether it already happened, is currently happening or is going to happen in the future. The fact that you claim that F=mxa doesn't work on quantum levels doesn't mean that other things deemed facts (because they are no longer theories) doesn't infact prove that other things can't be proven. And no evolution is not backed by all credible scientific study. Now that my friend is ignorance. I can't believe you would even have the guts to say something like that. It would be saying little for "credible science" since evolution hasn't been proven. No scientific experiment has ever generated something from nothing or proved that matter always existed. Not one scientific experiment as ever changed a species from one to another. There is credible scientific study that suggests a creator. Stephen Hawking himself stated that there is a creator at the end of his book "a brief history of time".

 

[illinialex24]

Faith- "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Are you serious if scientists couldn't prove things for certain then what is the point of science? Theories cease to be theories when they are consistently proven to work. If a theory every shows the slightest inconsistency then it remains theory and doesn't become scientific fact such as the speed of gravity on earth -9.81 m/s2. In simple terms in the above definition yes faith can be applied to science. The term faith just has bad stigma because of negative views about religion. Since God himself can't physically be proven the term faith is assigned inorder to believe in God. There are people such as yourself I would assume that find that idea of God crazy since it can't physically be proven. And yet many things in our physical universe can't be physically proven. Einstein was an outcast when he proposed relativity. At first he couldn't explain it but knew that it had to exist. People thought he was crazy. He by the definition above, had faith in relativity before he could prove it. Then he proved it and no longer needed faith because it was consistently proven in all tests done by his scientific experiments. (relativity was also proved by the experiments of others) And I don't believe that you can speak for every scientist. yes things can be proven. The speed of light is a testament to that. Light will forever travel 186000 miles per second it has been proven.

You have just ripped the last thread of credibility you had. Science can never prove anything for certain, because we do not know completely 100% completely what will happen the next time. A theory is still a theory when it is consistently proven to work. Take a look at evolution, take a look at Newton's Laws. Both are theories. Evolution is more credible than Newton's laws though, because they have more supporting them and less refuting them (everything supporting them and nothing refuting them, while Newton's laws have been disproven at quantum mechanics).

The point of science is to make educated guesses to make predictions about the future in a way and to learn more about our world, for differing reasons. But we cannot know 100% when something will work.

 

[Mewter]

If you say you follow the evidence then you might be interested in looking more into physics. For starters take thermodynamics. The first law shows that basically you can't create something from nothing. If you believe in the big bang (i actually for the most part believe that the big bang was a quite possible explanation for the birth of the universe, I however don't think it came about on it's own) The process of how the big bang happened is cake compared to trying to explain where the initial singularity came from. It didn't create itself and obviously wasn't always in existence. Your argument is against faith, but it would take faith for you to believe that it came about by itself because it is impossible to prove. No particle accelerator can prove how the initial singularity came about, just what happened the first few moments after it exploded and began to expand. Second law is of entropy. Scientists are amazed with how organized the universe is and yet everything has a tendency to disorder. If you leave a car by itself it will break down, same with a building, and all other matter here on earth. Yet the universe remains amazingly organized and self sustaining.

Read a bit about physics. Extra dimensions besides the three we are accustomed to are involved in the Big Bang.

Next take the forces that govern our universe. Gravity is perfectly proportionally weaker than the electromagnetic force to sustain the universe. The electromagnetic force is 10 to the 40th (a ten with forty zero's after it) stronger than gravity. If gravity were proportionally weaker by ten,( a ten with 41 zero's after it) gravity would be weaker in stars and the pressure of gravity wouldn't be high enough for nuclear fusion and stars wouldn't shine. If the strong nuclear force were merely 2 percent weaker then hydrogen would not exist our universe is roughly 70 percent hydrogen... And if the strong force were stronger then only heavier elements would exist. With no hydrogen we have no food or water (not to mention stars lacking the fuel needed to supply us with much needed energy here on earth. The weak force plays a role in supernova's and without supernovas we would lack the heavier elements necessary for planetary formation. Without these essentials you don't have a universe to create "single celled organisms" that magically adapt to environments and magically become more complex. I believe that is a fundamental for evolution, and yet physics clearly doesn't agree.

What part of physics doesn't agree? Thermodynamics? Things don't have to appear from nothing.... especially life. It has something to do with already-present chemicals reacting along with a few other factors. There was already something there. Physics agrees.

To believe in evolution you need faith just as a person who believes in God needs faith. Microevolution is possible and irrefutable and has been proven and is proven by the human body every day. However Macro evolution, the change of an entire species to another etc, has not been proven. In order to believe what hasn't been proven you need a measure of faith. To believe that an initial singularity magically appeared out of no where (which is impossible to prove because it is against physics to create energy or destroy it) requires faith, evolution is indeed a religion and is taught as dogmatically as any other religion.

....
If you call "faith" using evidence from the past and present to draw out a solid conclusion, then sure, it is faith.
It's as much faith as playing a game of cards several times, memorizing all the cards while looking at them, and "guessing" what they are.

 

[arrowhead]

the point of science is to APPROACH truth. it also brings useful results. the computer you're using to type that post was a direct result of science.

there is nothing in science higher than a theory. there are technically no facts. and no, faith cannot be applied to science. ask any real scientist (no creationist bullcrap) and they'll tell you exactly what i'm telling you now: faith and science are complete opposites. your claims that dictionary.com's definition is consistent with your claim only makes you look dumber every time.

your use of the word "prove" also shows your complete lack of understanding of science (or anything). to prove something, you would need to gather ALL possible observations and demonstrate then to be consistent with the idea. this is impossible for obvious reasons.

i don't find the idea of a god existing crazy since there has not been any observation that disprove it. i believe the christian god to be a stupid idea though. the bible is a book of contradictions.

 

[illinialex24]

the point of science is to APPROACH truth. it also brings useful results. the computer you're using to type that post was a direct result of science.

there is nothing in science higher than a theory. there are technically no facts. and no, faith cannot be applied to science. ask any real scientist (no creationist bullcrap) and they'll tell you exactly what i'm telling you now: faith and science are complete opposites. your claims that dictionary.com's definition is consistent with your claim only makes you look dumber every time.

your use of the word "prove" also shows your complete lack of understanding of science (or anything). to prove something, you would need to gather ALL possible observations and demonstrate then to be consistent with the idea. this is impossible for obvious reasons.

i don't find the idea of a god existing crazy since there has not been any observation that disprove it. i believe the christian god to be a stupid idea though. the bible is a book of contradictions.

That is a very intelligent post and its pretty much everything I have been debating for many years. And mc4, you really are arguing science with no idea what science is. You really should learn before arguing. I know I am not amazingly educated in faith, but I have read more than the average person who is arguing against the Bible here. Mewter completely crushed your entire arguments as well, and I really think you should learn science before you talk about it.

 

[arrowhead]

Evolution is more credible than Newton's laws though, because they have more supporting them and less refuting them (everything supporting them and nothing refuting them, while Newton's laws have been disproven at quantum mechanics).

actually the notion of evidence "supporting" a theory is incoherent. observations, can only be used to disprove.

 

[mc4]

Read a bit about physics. Extra dimensions besides the three we are accustomed to are involved in the Big Bang.

What part of physics doesn't agree? Thermodynamics? Things don't have to appear from nothing.... especially life. It has something to do with already-present chemicals reacting along with a few other factors. There was already something there. Physics agrees.


....
If you call "faith" using evidence from the past and present to draw out a solid conclusion, then sure, it is faith.
It's as much faith as playing a game of cards several times, memorizing all the cards while looking at them, and "guessing" what they are.

for the first statement I totally agree, especially since we currently live in 4 dimensions called "space time".

For the second statement. you are right physics does say something was already there it suggest the big bang which i have already said that i believe to be a possibility. However what i said i disagreed with is the idea of the initial singularity causing the bigbang always existed or came out of nowhere, that is what disagrees with thermodynamics. I know all my prior posts are probably very long and you don't want to read but it would be good to look at what i already said before you make assumptions...

and once again to the jigglypuff guy no my argument is not crushed if you want to disagree with an accurate definition of faith then go for it but i clearly have sources and few of you in disagreement with me do. My first post probably 5 pages ago by now has plenty of "scientific proof" as to why intelligent design is far more likely than chance. And let us say for a brief moment that your statement about nothing being proven and all things being theories is true ( i could very well be wrong about that) then if nothing can be proven and all things are theory then all science seems like it requires faith by the above definition that i mention a few posts ago. You can play with words all you want but a definition is a definition. "I guess Stephen Hawking is as crazy as me for believing in intelligent design"

OH YEAH AND ONCE AGAIN NO EVOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AS A FACT IT IS STILL A THEORY. I'm sorry that i didn't clarify this a second time already, since it was many posts ago. I do believe in evolution. I believe in micro evolution, that has beyond a doubt been proven. I however don't believe in macro it hasn't been proven

 

[illinialex24]

actually the notion of evidence "supporting" a theory is incoherent. observations, can only be used to disprove.

Essentially what I am saying is that it doesn't disprove it and for the purposes of our discussion, that is supporting it. We don't really need to delve deeper for a religious talk.

 

[arrowhead]

However what i said i disagreed with is the idea of the initial singularity causing the bigbang always existed or came out of nowhere, that is what disagrees with thermodynamics.

our laws of physics break down at that point. anything could have happened. we don't know and may never know.

look up hawking's "no boundary principal." i hear it does a good job explaining a possibility for the "creation" of the universe

Essentially what I am saying is that it doesn't disprove it and for the purposes of our discussion, that is supporting it.

then it also equally "supports" an infinite number of competing theories, thus not really supporting anything

 

[mc4]

our laws of physics break down at that point. anything could have happened. we don't know and may never know.

look up hawking's "no boundary principal." i hear it does a good job explaining a possibility for the "creation" of the universe


then it also equally "supports" an infinite number of competing theories, thus not really supporting anything

The no boundary principal simply states that the universe is finite in size but doesn't have a "boundary". It says that the universe is self contained and not affected by anything outside of it. It doesn't explain how the universe may have come about, just what the state of the universe may be. It see it totally as a possibility. God may have created the universe to be self sustaining and not dependent upon him. It makes sense to me.

I would like to say also that I respect everyone's opinion. for the most part it has been a very intelligent debate (everyone against me lol). As science progresses I believe we will have clearer answers on the always controversial discussion of God vs Evolution (macro) and spontaneous generation (where the initial singularity came from). Its a bit late here in FL i'd definitely like to continue this some other time.

 

[arrowhead]

My first post probably 5 pages ago by now has plenty of "scientific proof" as to why intelligent design is far more likely than chance.

stop lying

And let us say for a brief moment that your statement about nothing being proven and all things being theories is true ( i could very well be wrong about that) then if nothing can be proven and all things are theory then all science seems like it requires faith by the above definition that i mention a few posts ago. You can play with words all you want but a definition is a definition. "I guess Stephen Hawking is as crazy as me for believing in intelligent design"

no. first, scientific explanations are not facts (how many times do i have to repeat that?). you can't be wrong if you claim that "this theory may be true." second, theories have observations to support them (yeah, i'm taking the easy way out). even if the observations themselves are not "real," they are at least internally consistent and so have practical use in this universe. an observation about god cannot be distinguished from an observation without god, so it is completely useless as an explanation for anything

science requires NO faith

 

[illinialex24]

stop lying


no. first, scientific explanations are not facts (how many times do i have to repeat that?). you can't be wrong if you claim that "this theory may be true." second, theories have observations to support them (yeah, i'm taking the easy way out). even if the observations themselves are not "real," they are at least internally consistent and so have practical use in this universe. an observation about god cannot be distinguished from an observation without god, so it is completely useless as an explanation for anything

science requires NO faith

Once again good post but try not to antagonize him, even though he is wrong. You don't get anything by antagonizing your opponent, but by being polite and yet strong towards your view you can shape minds. Just not very often.

 

[arrowhead]

The no boundary principal simply states that the universe is finite in size but doesn't have a "boundary". It says that the universe is self contained and not affected by anything outside of it. It doesn't explain a possible creation, just what the state of the universe may be. It see it totally as a possibility. God may have created the universe to be self sustaining. It makes sense to me.

because the universe didn't HAVE to be created

yeah, god could have created the universe. and dinosaurs under the earth's crust could also be creating what we call gravity. the reason god isn't mentioned in any scientific theory is because there is no observation to distinguish between "god" and "nothing"

Once again good post but try not to antagonize him, even though he is wrong. You don't get anything by antagonizing your opponent, but by being polite and yet strong towards your view you can shape minds. Just not very often.

i like to let off some steam on the internet so i can pretend to be nice in real life

:]



oh, btw, the dinosaurs are real

 

[mc4]

If you say you follow the evidence then you might be interested in looking more into physics. For starters take thermodynamics. The first law shows that basically you can't create something from nothing. If you believe in the big bang (i actually for the most part believe that the big bang was a quite possible explanation for the birth of the universe, I however don't think it came about on it's own) The process of how the big bang happened is cake compared to trying to explain where the initial singularity came from. It didn't create itself and obviously wasn't always in existence. Your argument is against faith, but it would take faith for you to believe that it came about by itself because it is impossible to prove. No particle accelerator can prove how the initial singularity came about, just what happened the first few moments after it exploded and began to expand. Second law is of entropy. Scientists are amazed with how organized the universe is and yet everything has a tendency to disorder. If you leave a car by itself it will break down, same with a building, and all other matter here on earth. Yet the universe remains amazingly organized and self sustaining.

Next take the forces that govern our universe. Gravity is perfectly proportionally weaker than the electromagnetic force to sustain the universe. The electromagnetic force is 10 to the 40th (a ten with forty zero's after it) stronger than gravity. If gravity were proportionally weaker by ten,( a ten with 41 zero's after it) gravity would be weaker in stars and the pressure of gravity wouldn't be high enough for nuclear fusion and stars wouldn't shine. If the strong nuclear force were merely 2 percent weaker then hydrogen would not exist our universe is roughly 70 percent hydrogen... And if the strong force were stronger then only heavier elements would exist. With no hydrogen we have no food or water (not to mention stars lacking the fuel needed to supply us with much needed energy here on earth. The weak force plays a role in supernova's and without supernovas we would lack the heavier elements necessary for planetary formation. Without these essentials you don't have a universe to create "single celled organisms" that magically adapt to environments and magically become more complex. I believe that is a fundamental for evolution, and yet physics clearly doesn't agree.

To believe in evolution you need faith just as a person who believes in God needs faith. Microevolution is possible and irrefutable and has been proven and is proven by the human body every day. However Macro evolution, the change of an entire species to another etc, has not been proven. In order to believe what hasn't been proven you need a measure of faith. To believe that an initial singularity magically appeared out of no where (which is impossible to prove because it is against physics to create energy or destroy it) requires faith, evolution is indeed a religion and is taught as dogmatically as any other religion.

here is my first comment btw with currently up to date facts. and by saying that he shouldn't antagonize me even though I am wrong is in itself a bit antagonistic. Your argument of how nothing can be proven and all things being theories such as newtons laws not working on quantum levels (i'm going to look into that to see whether that is theory or proven) only suggests that even if evolution were ever proven (macro) that it would actually not really be proven since "nothing can be proven". If it could never be proven (which i don't believe it can ever be proven) then that only suggests the possibility of an alternative. I wonder what that alternative is? All that proven no proven stuff just seems like pretty word games to me.

 

[illinialex24]

here is my first comment btw with currently up to date facts.

Omg, an intelligent designer. I think I'm gonna puke. The argument that the chance is so small that the world would turn up this way is stupid because when something already happens, the odds don't stay magically crazy. If we could "restart" the universe, the odds of it being exactly like this if it had random rules would be small, but arguing probability is foolish. And there are very good explanations for how life arose. Would you like to hear them because they are a lot better than you might think.

 

[arrowhead]

Second law is of entropy. Scientists are amazed with how organized the universe is and yet everything has a tendency to disorder. If you leave a car by itself it will break down, same with a building, and all other matter here on earth. Yet the universe remains amazingly organized and self sustaining.

second law of thermodynamics only states that energy will never transfer from a colder body to a hotter body. the idea of order and disorder is subjective so it cannot be used in this argument. but if you need an example contradicting that then snowflakes and sand dunes are naturally occurring, yet very ordered

Next take the forces that govern our universe. Gravity is perfectly proportionally weaker than the electromagnetic force to sustain the universe. The electromagnetic force is 10 to the 40th (a ten with forty zero's after it) stronger than gravity. If gravity were proportionally weaker by ten,( a ten with 41 zero's after it) gravity would be weaker in stars and the pressure of gravity wouldn't be high enough for nuclear fusion and stars wouldn't shine.

and if a new force was introduced that held things together even more, larger atoms would be stable, thus increasing the amount of naturally occurring elements and increasing diversity!!!

really, this is not even an argument.

Microevolution is possible and irrefutable and has been proven and is proven by the human body every day. However Macro evolution, the change of an entire species to another etc, has not been proven.

macro, micro, they are essentially the SAME. if microevolution exists, obviously it will become macroevolution given a large amount of time. and don't try to get into irreducible complexity.


off to bed. goodnight people

 

[mc4]

Omg, an intelligent designer. I think I'm gonna puke. The argument that the chance is so small that the world would turn up this way is stupid because when something already happens, the odds don't stay magically crazy. If we could "restart" the universe, the odds of it being exactly like this if it had random rules would be small, but arguing probability is foolish. And there are very good explanations for how life arose. Would you like to hear them because they are a lot better than you might think.

Sure go for it. I don't think they will explain where the initial singularity that created the big bang came from tho. The argument against creation is an intelligent one. It takes intelligence to develop what seems to be plausible possibilities for our universe. I just don't agree with them. Your argument about chance and things even after they happened being valued as unlikely before they happened, but still happened is absolutely true. I don't think this works on the grand scale of the universe tho. I don't know if it is even possible to calculate the possibilities of all different variations of our universe as result of the big bang because there are so many laws that govern our universe. The point is for our universe to work the way it does sustaining both itself and life requires one variation out of a number so large that we could probably not fathom. Everything as i mentioned in my first comment which i quoted above is fine tuned and the slightest variation would cause very essential things not to work. so if you restart the universe, and the slightest thing changing, well we wouldn't be here to restart it again and peer into the probability of how we got here.


For the above no micro evolution and macro evolution arent the same. Micro is small changes, macro is large changes.

"and if a new force was introduced that held things together even more, larger atoms would be stable, thus increasing the amount of naturally occurring elements and increasing diversity!!!

really, this is not even an argument."

That doesn't even make sense. Where would this "new force" have come from? Physics teaches these 4 forces and none other. The argument is if these forces were even slightly weaker or stronger, not mysterious forces to supplement these differences. And there is no way to even begin to prove that this "new force" would hold things together more. That wouldn't even effect in the least what i said about the differences if gravity was proportionally weaker or stronger in comparison to electromagnitism haha and well irreducible complexity speaks for itself. If you took away any component in my eye (iris retina lense you name it) it wouldn't work. Although it is rejected by a majority of the scientific community in no way disproves it (people thought einstein was wrong and look where that got him, he was right) but the truth is it can be used on both sides of our argument and I don't really care to get into it because of that. It would be pretty pointless.

 

[illinialex24]

This is just a theory on a very plausible method for which life could have been created, one is the deep-sea vent and another is with hot clay.

Ok, so we know that early atmospheric life on earth could have produced monomers, including amino acids and nucleotides. Hot clay is charged and so it attracts monomers but also gives them the energy to react. We also know that it is possible for RNA strands to self-replicate, and although (I am fairly sure) no RNA strands in the lab have fully self-replicated, this should be fairly feasible in nature because it just takes 1 correct combination over millions of years to start life. Once RNA strands started self-replicating, evolution began. RNA strands that could replicate the fastest would be preferred and those that could react in smaller spaces would be able to react faster, so created the first "membranes", which were likely just basic lipids so they could enclose the chemicals. Next, those that used proteins could react faster, and so this truly jump started evolution, because it allowed us to us RNA to code for proteins which allowed the RNA to replicate faster. See, we just need stuff to replicate because once we do, since there are mistakes, we will get differences and eventually a new characteristic will take over until we get true organisms.

 

[Reaver197]

If you say you follow the evidence then you might be interested in looking more into physics. For starters take thermodynamics. The first law shows that basically you can't create something from nothing. If you believe in the big bang (i actually for the most part believe that the big bang was a quite possible explanation for the birth of the universe, I however don't think it came about on it's own) The process of how the big bang happened is cake compared to trying to explain where the initial singularity came from. It didn't create itself and obviously wasn't always in existence.

Alright, it's impossible to create something from nothing. So, clearly, the universe couldn't have come from nothing, only a god capable of designing and intricately running such a universe could've created it. Sounds dandy. But where did the god come from? If a universe on its own is already impossible to come into existence, how could a god who is capable of creating and designing a universe, something clearly considerably more complex than the universe itself, come to exist? Clearly, he couldn't just have always existed, and he couldn't have created himself. You'll get no further serious consideration from me until you can come up with a suitable answer to this huge contradiction you've laid for yourself.

Your argument is against faith, but it would take faith for you to believe that it came about by itself because it is impossible to prove. No particle accelerator can prove how the initial singularity came about, just what happened the first few moments after it exploded and began to expand. Second law is of entropy. Scientists are amazed with how organized the universe is and yet everything has a tendency to disorder. If you leave a car by itself it will break down, same with a building, and all other matter here on earth. Yet the universe remains amazingly organized and self sustaining.

Even more amazingly, it seems that god himself, a superbeing more complex than the universe is, is still highly organized and coherent. Guess he can void out entropy for himself. Let me make it exceptionally clear, you're the one arguing from faith here, simply declaring things by fiat for god that is possible but yet you hold impossible for anything else. How hypocritical of you to demand explanation for universe not voiding these laws of physics, yet not hold the god you claim to need to explain it to the very same problems and conditions that plagued it in the first place.

Next take the forces that govern our universe. Gravity is perfectly proportionally weaker than the electromagnetic force to sustain the universe. The electromagnetic force is 10 to the 40th (a ten with forty zero's after it) stronger than gravity. If gravity were proportionally weaker by ten,( a ten with 41 zero's after it) gravity would be weaker in stars and the pressure of gravity wouldn't be high enough for nuclear fusion and stars wouldn't shine. If the strong nuclear force were merely 2 percent weaker then hydrogen would not exist our universe is roughly 70 percent hydrogen... And if the strong force were stronger then only heavier elements would exist. With no hydrogen we have no food or water (not to mention stars lacking the fuel needed to supply us with much needed energy here on earth. The weak force plays a role in supernova's and without supernovas we would lack the heavier elements necessary for planetary formation. Without these essentials you don't have a universe to create "single celled organisms" that magically adapt to environments and magically become more complex. I believe that is a fundamental for evolution, and yet physics clearly doesn't agree.

You have no evidence to prove that they couldn't deviate from those values. For all we know, these values could not possibly be any other value, and that they are no freer to vary than the answer to the question of 2 + 2. Once again, you're declaring things by fiat and faith, with no consideration to actual truth or evidence.

As for the bit at the end there, physics clearly does agree with evolution, else we would not be here to debate about it. Besides, you said nothing about physics that would at all preclude evolution.

To believe in evolution you need faith just as a person who believes in God needs faith. Microevolution is possible and irrefutable and has been proven and is proven by the human body every day. However Macro evolution, the change of an entire species to another etc, has not been proven. In order to believe what hasn't been proven you need a measure of faith. To believe that an initial singularity magically appeared out of no where (which is impossible to prove because it is against physics to create energy or destroy it) requires faith, evolution is indeed a religion and is taught as dogmatically as any other religion.

Ok, I always found it perplexing when people say they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. If you believe in one, you believe in the other. Just think about it this way. You accept the fact that an organism can change a tiny bit from one generation to the next, right? Well, now, imagine the cumulative affect of tiny bit of change every generation, or even every tenth generation if you want, over the course of millions if not billions of years, then compare the most recent organism to original starting organism. It will have become a drastically different organism, by the power of changing a small bit at a time over a very long period of time.

As for direct proof, there is a ton of proof. Here's some. They found an intermediate species for the evolution of flatfish.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...caught-evolving-thanks-to-its-roving-eye.html

General FAQs for evolution, dealing with the fact that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, and having transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Here is an article about a fossil found that bridges the gap between swimming fish and four-legged land creatures.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14952-missing-link-fossil-stuck-its-neck-out.html

Here, you can even read the wikipedia page on Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

And to preclude a further resuscitation to the topic of intelligent design, here's another article.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html

Clearly, you lack any real understanding of evolution if you somehow try to claim evolution is a "religion". Evolution is a process that simply explains how less complicated life forms can become more complicated.

As for how life actually started, you can start by reading some of the theories from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_life

Life never "magically" appeared, and never "magically" changed from one species to another. To have said such an outrageous thing indicates a lack of any good scientific education on your behalf, or a complete refusal to see and acknowledge the evidence. That only makes your position all the more contemptible when you try to then use science (incorrectly and erroneously) to disprove other established scientific theory.

Also, once again, people seem to be confused or ignorant as to what the phrase "scientific theory" entails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Also a quote from here (which contains other interesting tidbits): http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

[mc4]

This is just a theory on a very plausible method for which life could have been created, one is the deep-sea vent and another is with hot clay.

Ok, so we know that early atmospheric life on earth could have produced monomers, including amino acids and nucleotides. Hot clay is charged and so it attracts monomers but also gives them the energy to react. We also know that it is possible for RNA strands to self-replicate, and although (I am fairly sure) no RNA strands in the lab have fully self-replicated, this should be fairly feasible in nature because it just takes 1 correct combination over millions of years to start life. Once RNA strands started self-replicating, evolution began. RNA strands that could replicate the fastest would be preferred and those that could react in smaller spaces would be able to react faster, so created the first "membranes", which were likely just basic lipids so they could enclose the chemicals. Next, those that used proteins could react faster, and so this truly jump started evolution, because it allowed us to us RNA to code for proteins which allowed the RNA to replicate faster. See, we just need stuff to replicate because once we do, since there are mistakes, we will get differences and eventually a new characteristic will take over until we get true organisms.

That's all in theory tho. The miller experiment proved that under certain atmospheric conditions amino acids could form, however these amino acids never formed proteins which are vital for life. This idea of amino acids forming is also based on the idea that the atmosphere at that time was reducing (didn't have as much oxygen as it does not because if it did the oxygen would react with the assembling amino acids and dismantling molecules as they formed) Further there is nothing to prove that the atmosphere was reducing. Amino acids have been synthesized such as in the miller experiment, but proteins and DNA haven't which are both essential for life. You have a good argument, it just hasn't been proven.

 

[mc4]

Alright, it's impossible to create something from nothing. So, clearly, the universe couldn't have come from nothing, only a god capable of designing and intricately running such a universe could've created it. Sounds dandy. But where did the god come from? If a universe on its own is already impossible to come into existence, how could a god who is capable of creating and designing a universe, something clearly considerably more complex than the universe itself, come to exist? Clearly, he couldn't just have always existed, and he couldn't have created himself. You'll get no further serious consideration from me until you can come up with a suitable answer to this huge contradiction you've laid for yourself.



Even more amazingly, it seems that god himself, a superbeing more complex than the universe is, is still highly organized and coherent. Guess he can void out entropy for himself. Let me make it exceptionally clear, you're the one arguing from faith here, simply declaring things by fiat for god that is possible but yet you hold impossible for anything else. How hypocritical of you to demand explanation for universe not voiding these laws of physics, yet not hold the god you claim to need to explain it to the very same problems and conditions that plagued it in the first place.



You have no evidence to prove that they couldn't deviate from those values. For all we know, these values could not possibly be any other value, and that they are no freer to vary than the answer to the question of 2 + 2. Once again, you're declaring things by fiat and faith, with no consideration to actual truth or evidence.

As for the bit at the end there, physics clearly does agree with evolution, else we would not be here to debate about it. Besides, you said nothing about physics that would at all preclude evolution.



Ok, I always found it perplexing when people say they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. If you believe in one, you believe in the other. Just think about it this way. You accept the fact that an organism can change a tiny bit from one generation to the next, right? Well, now, imagine the cumulative affect of tiny bit of change every generation, or even every tenth generation if you want, over the course of millions if not billions of years, then compare the most recent organism to original starting organism. It will have become a drastically different organism, by the power of changing a small bit at a time over a very long period of time.

As for direct proof, there is a ton of proof. Here's some. They found an intermediate species for the evolution of flatfish.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...caught-evolving-thanks-to-its-roving-eye.html

General FAQs for evolution, dealing with the fact that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, and having transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Here is an article about a fossil found that bridges the gap between swimming fish and four-legged land creatures.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14952-missing-link-fossil-stuck-its-neck-out.html

Here, you can even read the wikipedia page on Evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

And to preclude a further resuscitation to the topic of intelligent design, here's another article.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html

Clearly, you lack any real understanding of evolution if you somehow try to claim evolution is a "religion". Evolution is a process that simply explains how less complicated life forms can become more complicated.

As for how life actually started, you can start by reading some of the theories from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_life

Life never "magically" appeared, and never "magically" changed from one species to another. To have said such an outrageous thing indicates a lack of any good scientific education on your behalf, or a complete refusal to see and acknowledge the evidence. That only makes your position all the more contemptible when you try to then use science (incorrectly and erroneously) to disprove other established scientific theory.

Also, once again, people seem to be confused or ignorant as to what the phrase "scientific theory" entails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Also a quote from here (which contains other interesting tidbits): http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

"sorry about the double post." No I am not declaring those things i said before about variations on faith, those are facts, I presented those facts already. If you can prove that our universe could be sustained with a slight variation of any of the things I mentioned above about gravity strong weak forces etc I would love to read it. I think you would be the first person to discover these possibilities... Yes A God that created the universe would indeed not be subject to the laws of the universe. the things within our universe are subject to the laws of the universe. I don't believe that God is a part of our universe, but in another realm beyond our material universe. To clear up any possible misunderstandings I don't believe God is a physical being but a spiritual one, not made of matter like our universe is. So yes I do need faith for what I believe. I already said this a while ago. I believe evolution might as well be a religion because it is an attempt to explain where things came from... well g doesn't the bible do that too... Obviously compared to someone like you who believes in evolution i do lack knowledge of it but i know enough about it to know that I don't agree with it. I don't believe in macro evolution because it hasn't been proven. I believe in what the bible says and it doesn't support macro evolution. I agree with alot of science, clearly as i have used physics for the major part of my argument, I just don't really think Macro Evolution and a spontaneous initial singularity makes sense. I think it is best to leave this argument as you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. My belief in God cannot be physically proven I acknowledge that, but I do believe when taking the universe and its many fine tuned laws into consideration shows intelligent design. You believe that things came about on their own or existed already. Neither can be physically proven. Science can only prove what happened at the event of the big bang (when it exploded) It can't prove anything before it. Many scientists have admitted this i've read a number of quotes to back that up.

 

[Reaver197]

No I am not declaring those things i said before about variations on faith, those are facts, I presented those facts already. Yes A God that created the universe would indeed not be subject to the laws of the universe. the things within our universe are subject to the laws of the universe. I don't believe that God is a part of our universe, but in another realm beyond our universe. So yes I do need faith for what I believe. I already said this a while ago. I believe evolution might as well be a religion because it is an attempt to explain where things came from... well g doesn't the bible do that too... Obviously compared to someone like you who believes in evolution i do lack knowledge of it but i know enough about it to know that I don't agree with it. I don't believe in macro evolution because it hasn't been proven. I believe in what the bible says and it doesn't support macro evolution. I agree with alot of science, clearly as i have used physics for the major part of my argument, I just don't really think Macro Evolution and a spontaneous initial singularity makes sense. I think it is best to leave this argument as you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. My belief in God cannot be physically proven I acknowledge that, but I do believe when taking the universe and its many fine tuned laws into consideration shows intelligent design. You believe that things came about on their own or existed already. Neither can be physically proven. Science can only prove what happened at the event of the big bang (when it exploded) It can't prove anything before it. Many scientists have admitted this i've read a number of quotes to back that up.

A couple things.

Please actually read and comprehend my post in its entirety. Please. Especially if you're going to directly quote and reply to it. It's extremely rude to not to, which you clearly have not.

Also, just because scientists aren't absolutely certain about something does not mean you can stick a god there, or turn that into a clear definite reason to believe in god.

Just to let you know, the initial singularity isn't a definite thing. It's just the current hypothesis we have, but it's doubtful it will hold up or actually be reflective of the truth.

And aren't you the one implementing magic with these "magical" other realms that a god can exist in, from which he can "magically" manipulate our universe yet "magically" does not have to abide to its laws. All without a single jot of evidence too. Huh, how about that?