[_ Old Earth _] Creating

[Featherbop]

Yes.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Life does a good job starting itself up, I really don't see any need for a deity.

 

[Arnold Philips]

I don't know. Both are reasonable explanations, to me.

 

[Andre3000]

No. The Weak Anthropic Principle does a pretty good job at explaining that.

 

[Featherbop]

Life does a good job starting itself up, I really don't see any need for a deity.

All depends on what one is willing to consider "life".

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Life has got a fairly good definition.

 

[Featherbop]

Yes, I'm sure it does.

 

[Barabbas]

Since LIFE cannot form on its own, in the presence of OXYGEN, I'd say Yes, it has to be CREATED.
Yol Bolsun.

 

[Quath]

If God is alive, then did God create Himself or did life form on its own?

Sometimes it is hard to define life and what is living. Is a man alive? A cell? A virus? At some level some line is drawn in the sand between life and non-life. However, it is arbitrary.

A fun mental game is to make this line in the sand at any criteria. Say you define it somewhere around something that resembles a virus befoe life turns into non-life. There is one atom that could be removed that would then turn life into non-life. Adding that atom back would make life once again. (This is not the paradox of the heap since atoms are discrete bundles of information. CO2 and O2 are vastly different even though they differ by 1 atom.)

So life from non-life is a simple mechanical problem.

Quath

 

[Featherbop]

The problem I have(I think its really only one objection) is that life has never been shown to come from non-living matter. Except for one case, in the creation, God has the ability to do it. It simply sounds ludicrous to say that a living creation can *spontaneously* arise from any non-living matter.

However, It is easy to believe that something is created, and design indicates designer. thats another debate though. :wink:

Laboratory experiments have never produced life, and never has life been observed spontaneously arising from non-living matter. All life comes from pre-existing life, and this is the fact of the matter.

Of course, the big(or one big) problem with this debate is that, unfortuneately, opinions have to enter the fray. Some may think simple non-living proteins are life, which is non-life, but non-life arising from non-life must be considered life(I suppose to any extent) in order to justify the next level in the belief, which is life from non-life. Some people, (and I think scientists in the field of this study may be in large part, to blame for confusion and blurring the line between life an not life.) may blurr the lines in order to rationalize the next step.

This is one of the problems with atheistic evolution, theistic evolution can handle this easily though. When you've got God, everything is possible.

I would really like to see real life(actually living) rise from matter that is not alive.

I'm not sure, but I think the spontaneous generation belief is very outdated and shown inncorrect, form the dark ages.....but I don't remember.

 

[reznwerks]

life

The problem I have(I think its really only one objection) is that life has never been shown to come from non-living matter. Except for one case, in the creation, God has the ability to do it.

Thats a claim you have no proof of and only an assumption. It is wrong to default an explanation to God because you have no other.

It simply sounds ludicrous to say that a living creation can *spontaneously* arise from any non-living matter. \

It is just as ludicrous to default the explanation to a God of which no one has seen or evidence been presented.

However, It is easy to believe that something is created, and design indicates designer. thats another debate though. :wink:

Believing doesn't make it true. As to design , many animals are not designed for the best results. Man himself is not designed well if we consider his back. Evolution best describes this state of affairs. If a God had designed man he could have done a better job.

Laboratory experiments have never produced life, and never has life been observed spontaneously arising from non-living matter. All life comes from pre-existing life, and this is the fact of the matter.

As you said there is just this one time that life has appeared from non life. How this happened is as yet unknown.

Of course, the big(or one big) problem with this debate is that, unfortuneately, opinions have to enter the fray. Some may think simple non-living proteins are life, which is non-life, but non-life arising from non-life must be considered life(I suppose to any extent) in order to justify the next level in the belief, which is life from non-life. Some people, (and I think scientists in the field of this study may be in large part, to blame for confusion and blurring the line between life an not life.) may blurr the lines in order to rationalize the next step.

Non living proteins are not life and no one says they are. They do agree they are the first and basic steps to having life. Scientists are not confused about the facts. Theists are confused because they don't understand science. The next step is yet to be realized.

This is one of the problems with atheistic evolution, theistic evolution can handle this easily though. When you've got God, everything is possible.

Of course everything is possible in make believe land. That is what God is. If you don't have an answer PRESTO , God did it problem answered.That may have worked in ancient days but it doesn't fly today. Today we can say we still don't know but we are working on it.

I would really like to see real life(actually living) rise from matter that is not alive.

So would I. Then this would be conclusive evidence that God is not responsible nor needed for life.

I'm not sure, but I think the spontaneous generation belief is very outdated and shown inncorrect, form the dark ages.....but I don't remember.

Spontaneous generation has been proved wrong years ago where have you been?

 

[Featherbop]

Thats a claim you have no proof of and only an assumtion. It is wrong to default an explanation to God because you have no other.

I have proof, I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm saying God created, because He did. There is no other explanation that does not reveal itself to be a piece of crap.

It is just as ludicrous to default the explanation to a God of which no one has seen or evidence been presented.

I don't need evidence, I have irrefutable proof, and its all mine. There is evidence however, and of course, the cowards(atheists) reject it.

But, to give you a chance, show me evidnece of God not existing, or give me proof of God not existing. You atheists have such atrocious double standards.

Beleiving doesn't make it true.

Right, and your beliefs are still false, despite your beleiving them.

As to design , many animals are not designed for the best results.

Did you have a point with this?

Evolution best describes this state of affairs.

In your opinion, I'm sure it does.

If God had designed a man he could have done a better job.

All was perfect in the beggining. You(mankind) made it imperfect.

As you said there is just one time that life has appeared from non-life. How this happened is as yet unknown.

I know how it happened quite well, actually. And no, it didn't just "appear".

_____

The rest of your post rezn, is just mindless atheist bashing mostly, so it needs no rebuttle.

_____

Now, I suppose this something that all people agree on, in basis, but not in details of how, when, why, etc. Everyone believes that life comes the matter that is not alive. The ludicrous idea that life, spontaneously, or that life without intelligent creator, comes inot existance is just laughable. It is very false, and shown to not happen.

It is known that life has never been created by anyone, or anything(with God as the exception) whether out in nature, or in a laboratory, or in a failed kitchen experiment.

Life has never been observed coming from non-living matter by any human. Spontaneously, or without a creator, that is.

To accept that this life evolves into the larger, more advanced organisms, one would need conclusive proof, or at very least, incredibly strong evidence that life is created by natural forces. one would also need the the evidence of lifes evolution from this small life inot the advanced life.

Noone can ever give any evidence for these things, and everyone i ever asked is dodgy, or "doesn't understand" it. Of course, though, you can't understand what doesn't exist to be understood. [/quote]

 

[Wertbag]

Life has never been observed coming from non-living matter by any human. Spontaneously, or without a creator, that is.

Current technology does not allow us to run the tests. That doesn't mean we won't be able to, simply that we haven't yet done so. The basic idea that atheists follow requires a whole planet and a couple of billion years, not the easiest thing to replicate in the lab.

But, to give you a chance, show me evidnece of God not existing, or give me proof of God not existing. You atheists have such atrocious double standards.

I'm a non-believer due to many factors, as I'm sure you are a Christian for many reasons. I'm sure you couldn't prove God to me, and I'm sure that no matter what I say I won't disprove him to you.
Personally there are several things that have lead me to disbelieve. Like the ages in the Bible (I can't see anyway for humans to live to be 900 years old), the global flood (basically an impossibility without adding numerous miracles that aren't mentioned in the Bible), the share number of competing religions/churches (the majority of the world must be wrong regardless of the correct answer), prayer not working, the unstability of the Bible as the basis of faith (even Christian researchers admit to errors, but I find it hard to believe a book written by not first hand accounts hundreds of years after the events by unknown authors with unknown motives, translated through numerous languages, with bits added and removed depending on which church or king had a hand in it, by ancient people with only a basic understanding of our world and that makes such fantastic unproven claims). I've heard logical reasons for some of the Biblical stories (Noahs flood being regional or a myth from the epic of giglamesh, Sodom being built on a volcano or Job having a terrible life and trying to find someone to blame or some hope), whether or not they are correct is debatable, but they certainly make a lot of sense when viewed against what we know.
I have seen many holes in the young earth and creation beliefs (I've seen holes in evolution too and don't understand it well enough to make a conclusion on that). I've seen Christians argue with Christians over the meaning of what they believe in, what the Bible means, which church is correct, what brings salvation and dozen of other issues. Its obviously not clear, and I see no end to those arguements any time soon.

So yes I have based my disbelief on many things that I've been looking into. I'm sure each atheist will have a different set of reasons, but a lot of the basic ones are fairly commonly held by most of them. Its quite possible that some of them maybe answerable, but there are just too many holes and too many questions for me to have faith in any god.

 

[Featherbop]

The idea that life for no reason or purpose, whatsoever, developed from non-matter spontaneously, on this planet billions of years ago, and has since then become what we have today, I find that very preposterous. Noone has ever explained that in a way that ios logical, and can answer any questions i have about that possiblity. Of course, I understand that some people beleive that that happened, but that it was ordered, and overseen by God to make what we have today. That would be the only explanation to validate that idea that is ridiculous otherwise.

_____

so, you think its immpossible to have faith in God because there are too many unknown things, and too many questions?

I have a lot of unanswered questions, and there is indeed a lot of unknown territory, but I still find it easy to, at very least, beleive in God. I don't focus on looking for answers from other people, because I know that most are misleading, dishonest, etc. And will lead people in the wrong directions when it comes to learning the truth of things. In my experiance, the best plan is too look for yourself, noones word is good enough.

_____

I am a christian, but not neccesarily for many reasons, I have one big one that started my beleifs. God revealed Himself as being real, and then I went on a "journey" to find out more about Him. I am always going to be on this journey while on earth, but that is fine with me. The unanswered questions do not phase me.

I believe that the bible is God's written through men, words of what is true. I believe from evidence that it stands apart and alone, from all other books, especially all other religious books.

_____

Anyway, I hope you find the answers to yuor questions wertbag.

 

[nekohakase]

there's no difference

Life does a good job starting itself up, I really don't see any need for a deity.

Just cuz ya don't see a diety sitting next to the test tube doesn't mean he's not making it run from behind.
I think that God made the earth and gave guidelines for the way life has to be made. If you put together the right ingrediants and come up with life, that simply means that God designed it so it was possible. You can't make life if the chemicals you use didn't have the predestined potential to do so.

 

[Arnold Philips]

I hope reznwerks doesn't mmind me replying for him (I'm assuming it's a him)...

I have proof, I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm saying God created, because He did. There is no other explanation that does not reveal itself to be a piece of crap.

Calling any other explantion "a piece of crap," I think, it's rather bullheaded of you. If reasonable people (something I'm sure you consider yourself) can believe something, then there must be in the very least a bit of reason. Reznwerks and others like him seem to be reasonable people that take the idea of God pretty seriously, and as such, cannot believe the version of Him with which they were presented. You do the same thing with all the other gods, so I don't think you can call their beliefs pieces of crap.

I don't need evidence, I have irrefutable proof, and its all mine.

Well, secret evidence doesn't really count as evidence does it? If you'd like to present it, that'd be great. Otherwise, your top-secret portfolio doesn't do much good.

There is evidence however, and of course, the cowards(atheists) reject it.

They reject the evidences because they cannot bring themselves to believe it, not because they are cowards. That wasn't very nice of you at all to call them cowards. If anything, I think the people that are cowards are the ones too afraid to challenge the bases of their own beliefs to see if they stand or fall (not that I'm calling you this).

But, to give you a chance, show me evidnece of God not existing, or give me proof of God not existing. You atheists have such atrocious double standards.

Logicians will agree that proving a negative is impossible (try disproving the existence of pink faeries inside a moon on the other side of the galaxy). The burden of evidence is on our side to show the existence of God.

Beleiving doesn't make it true.

True.

Right, and your beliefs are still false, despite your beleiving them.

Correction: If is your belief that they are false.

Did you have a point with this?

His point, I believe, is that if you wish to claim that the universe appears to have been "designed" (whatever that means), then it should show perfection, because God is perfect. Organisms have all kinds of flaws that indicate something other than design. Humans, for example, do not have wonderful respiratory systems.

In your opinion, I'm sure it does.

In the opinion of scientists and many people who actually know what they are talking about, evolution is clearly the model that best describes the data we have accumulated.

All was perfect in the beggining. You(mankind) made it imperfect.

According to the creation account, one man made it imperfect, and this curse is carried through all humanity. Your accusation of reznwerks alone making the earth imperfect is silly and immature. Even so, you can claim that it was "perfect in the beginning," but this is just a loophole for you since you do not define what "perfect" means. Was there entropy, for example? Did Adam and Eve have pimples?

I know how it happened quite well, actually. And no, it didn't just "appear".

There is a possibility and a rationale that it did just appear.

The rest of your post rezn, is just mindless atheist bashing mostly, so it needs no rebuttle.[quote:310a1]
I think you mean "rebuttal," and this post was pretty mean-spirited as well, so don't go out mote-pointing.

[quote:310a1]Now, I suppose this something that all people agree on, in basis, but not in details of how, when, why, etc. Everyone believes that life comes the matter that is not alive. The ludicrous idea that life, spontaneously, or that life without intelligent creator, comes inot existance is just laughable. It is very false, and shown to not happen.

Abiogenesis has rationale behind it, and I suggest that you don't throw it out the window until you hear what it has to say. I am not an authority on it, but from what I know, life could have come to be since complex organic molecules are able to assemble and replicate fairly easily, and readily too.

It is known that life has never been created by anyone, or anything(with God as the exception) whether out in nature, or in a laboratory, or in a failed kitchen experiment.

I'm fairly sure this is false, though I'll leave the actual study-searching to others better versed than I.

To accept that this life evolves into the larger, more advanced organisms, one would need conclusive proof, or at very least, incredibly strong evidence that life is created by natural forces.

Now I know for certain this is incorrect. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to say about how life came to be. Evolution assumes the existence of life. Evolution does not care one bit about how life came into existence. It could have been created by God, by underwater sea vents, or by pink faeries in a moon, it doesn't matter. It is abiogenesis that deals with the birth of life on earth, not evolution. This is a common misconception among those ignorant of how evolution works.

one would also need the the evidence of lifes evolution from this small life inot the advanced life.

Then it's your lucky day. There are mountains of evidence for evolution.

Noone can ever give any evidence for these things, and everyone i ever asked is dodgy, or "doesn't understand" it. Of course, though, you can't understand what doesn't exist to be understood.

[/quote:310a1][/quote:310a1]
This is not good enough. You automatically shove away evidence before anyone even brings some up. Please take your fingers out of your ears and your head out of the sand. Evolution, I know, is a tricky concept that is a little harder to learn than other things, but if you actually care to learn the truth, or at least the reasons why people believe in evolution, then listen up.

 

[cd27]

yes, it takes a God for life to exist. without a god, nothing at all would exist. i ask a question, "how did matter get here if there was no god to put it here in the firt place?" evolutionists answer, "it was converted to matter from energy." my answer, "but that's only a manipulation of something that already existed, HOW did matter get here if there was no god to put it here in the first place?" another answer they gave me, "i don't know"......."what, i can't hear you."........."i don't know" great, perfect answer. they don't know. i do. simple answer. God put it there. then, if you read my Inol theory, the section where it talks about the absolute theory, it shows that god also had to be present to START the big bang. and then this leads up to earth being created, and this all happened in six days by the way, or maybe 5, i don't know for sure, but evolution never happened. if it did, it certainly didn't take millions of years to happen.

take a fish. this fish just flops on land, oops, now the fish can't breath on land, so what's it gonna do? oh oww! it's gonna grow lungs and fly away, with it's new found wings...now where in th genetic code does it allow that kind of change at? first of all, that fish would ahve died within an hour, it woouldn't be able to survive on land long enough for any mutation to occur. the same goes for a fish who decides to grow lungs in the water. it will die within about an hour. these evolutionists just say some wacky stuff don't they?

some peopel have told me, well, frogs have gills to begin with, then they have lungs......then i add to them, all this happened very quickly, not in millions of years. and plus, it's writting in EVERY frog's genetic code, this means it happens to every frog, from day one, to day X. so, if we came from apes, we should be apes when we're born first, then we should convert to humans...somehow i am amzed that i'm not born as an ape. wow, isn't that interesting?

 

[Featherbop]

You brought up several good points cd27. You brought up what kills atheism, eternal matter. Atheism dies at the beggining of itself, because it never explains how the matter and energy "get there", and claims no supernatural properties for the ability to be eternal.

 

[Arnold Philips]

yes, it takes a God for life to exist. without a god, nothing at all would exist. i ask a question, "how did matter get here if there was no god to put it here in the firt place?" evolutionists answer, "it was converted to matter from energy." my answer, "but that's only a manipulation of something that already existed, HOW did matter get here if there was no god to put it here in the first place?" another answer they gave me, "i don't know"......."what, i can't hear you."........."i don't know" great, perfect answer. they don't know. i do. simple answer. God put it there. then, if you read my Inol theory, the section where it talks about the absolute theory, it shows that god also had to be present to START the big bang. and then this leads up to earth being created, and this all happened in six days by the way, or maybe 5, i don't know for sure, but evolution never happened. if it did, it certainly didn't take millions of years to happen.

If you are going to be honest, you must admit that you don't know how it all got there either. I beleive God made it, but others don't, and their guess is as good as mine, given the evidence and experiences we have to work with. Their answer of "I don't know" is pretty much the same as "God did it," if you think about it.

take a fish. this fish just flops on land, oops, now the fish can't breath on land, so what's it gonna do? oh oww! it's gonna grow lungs and fly away, with it's new found wings...now where in th genetic code does it allow that kind of change at? first of all, that fish would ahve died within an hour, it woouldn't be able to survive on land long enough for any mutation to occur. the same goes for a fish who decides to grow lungs in the water. it will die within about an hour. these evolutionists just say some wacky stuff don't they?

some peopel have told me, well, frogs have gills to begin with, then they have lungs......then i add to them, all this happened very quickly, not in millions of years. and plus, it's writting in EVERY frog's genetic code, this means it happens to every frog, from day one, to day X. so, if we came from apes, we should be apes when we're born first, then we should convert to humans...somehow i am amzed that i'm not born as an ape. wow, isn't that interesting?

If you actually cared to learn about evolution (how it works, not how you think it works) and stopped constructing strawmen, then that'd be great. Otherwise, adieu.

 

[cd27]

actually, there is where you are wrong. i CAN give an explanation as to how matter got here. please read my Inol theory. scroll down to the part where it starts talkign about Inol jello. and you will have your answer. i can say, that theory proves more than you could think in years. but, it is but a theory, and i am workign on making it a law. as for the fish and all of that, i will re-post exactly what i posted in another thread.




you have missed my point entirely. evolution can not exist. everything points aginst it. no offense, but it's jsut wrong. for evolution to work, AT ALL, it relies on millions of years to do so, darwin himself said that. and it can't take millions of years for evolution to take place. if it did, everything would have died right off the bat, in one oor two hours of trying to transform. then there would be nothing left. all living things would stop being living. how can you say that god started evolution? evolution kills, it doesn't bring life.

my idea about the frog, that is not an irrelevant analogy. the frog does transform. but it is very very quickly, so it doesn't give it a chance to die. plus, it is written in the frog's genetic code to do that EVERY TIME, not jsut once, not just twice, every single time. i've never seen one frog that did not start off swimming and end up hopping on land. they are supposed to do that. and lots of evidence shows that it ahsn't changed over the milions of years.

infact, dinosaurs existed the same time man did. they stood side by side all the time. they have fossils to prove it. except, back then, tehy didn't call them "dinosaurs", they called them leviathans, sepants, dragons, things like that. these are the dinosaurs that you find in the dirt all teh time. i have one question for you. even if evolution is true, we should see LIVING creatures from the lower chain of evolution, not DEAD creatures. if they can survive long enough to reproduce, then so should the other ones. but instead, we find dead ones. and only one of them at that! even if you think that god started evolution, that's wrong, evolution is wrong, creationism is right. the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, it is roughly around 6,000-10,000 years of age. nothing less, nothing more. the creation of that took six days, max. six 24-hour-period-DAYS.you don't believe me, go to the web site http://www.drdino.com, look for the science tab, then articles, then creation Vs. evolution, then look for the topic "physics shows how six day creation is possible". after you finnish reading that, all you can say is, "well, i don't think that our galaxy is the center of the universe, so it must be wrong" and why would that be? you throw out factual evidence because you "think" it must be wrong? not very scientific. then, to back up another remark, you can go to that same site, go to the science tab, then articles, then physics, then the topic "star not billions of light years away". i agree with that, but i also have my very own idea to add to it. when the big bang exploded, it didn't take billions of light years to get to where it's at, it took some 6,000 years. that's it. how does any other "evidence" you know of show that evolution is right...with all the topics and ideas that i have given you, real evidences, can your evidence overthrow mine? if so, i want to see it. then i will decide if it overthrows anything or not.