The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate] 

1, a question, 2, a closing argument

i guess im asking randomly but does anyone know of a method to get back into an instagram account?? I stupidly lost my password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me

@Emmitt Zahir instablaster =)

Evolutionism is full of those .

@@patrickkparrker413 Those what? Oh, you talking about true facts, I agree with you on that fact dude.

lol, this grey bearded man thinks hes inteligent, maybe but he as no common sense wbu lol

Thank you for noticing and noting this fact. A quality too often absent

@Un Passant Y don't know. It is revelation from Almighty Allah to all humans. Allah says : ... These are verses of the book , that which is revealed unto thee from they Lord is the Truth,but most of mankind believe not". ( Qur'an,13:1) Like this in many verses Almighty Allah has mentioned that this book is from Allah: The revelation of the book wherein there is no doubt is from the Lord of the Worlds". ( Qur'an,32:1) It is in the interest of mankind to believe in Almighty Allah and to submit to Him and believe in His last and final messenger Mohammad (pbuh). Read the Holy Qur'an.

They always end up talking about the nature of God, which is completely outside of the intended focus.

Because they are BOTH evolutionists - if God said he took 6 days to create everything, then that is exactly how long he took. Why try and force fit this into fantasy of billions of years? In fact the question you should be asking is why did He even take 6 days.....

think its more we are finding out jesus probably never existed...we know yahweh was the caananite wind god who had a wife fathered kids and when jews left their ancestors the Canaanites evolved from being human to more god like though it took the jews 400 years droping other gods to just yahweh.....even hebrew is the Canaanite language.....nothing in judaism is original to them...its all borrowed or stolen from other cultures

@@paulrichards6894 99% of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian will tell you that Jesus of Nazareth was a real human who walked the earth 2000 years ago. He’s literally one of the most documented persons in history.

@@Becca_Lynn 99% of Christian biblical scholars...... were the same people who said moses was a real person...turns out he was not....there is far too much money in jesus to rock the boat

@@Becca_Lynn a priest to the vatican wrote a book you can google him saying jesus was a myth....he was quickly shut up and retired...

@@Becca_Lynn where is this most documented...there is ZERO evidence for jesus OUTSIDE of the bible....you can't use the bible to prove the bible....the gospels were written 40 or 50 years later in a different country in a different language

On this issue, both sides cannot be respectful, because one side is wrong: Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

we

Its the time issue. The proposed billions of years is not enough time for random mutations to add up to the complexity of the cell and the interactions between cells.

@@natee8573 How do you know? And with enough molecules and time, of course it's possible. Sure, it may be unlikely that something works, but the more molecules we have the more chances we have of something working out. And then those continue.

Let's say people believe that there was or is a designer. Who designed the designer? And how many designers ?

Only magic could produce a coded information processing system using blind and mindless processes.

@@sombodysdad Hey, kid! Here is some attention for you. :-)

@@lepidoptera9337 Maybe you should get a brain.

@@sombodysdad I actually have a PhD in physics, kid. ;-)

@@lepidoptera9337 Thanks for sensibly adressing all the arguments.

When he said that, my first thought was "quite possibly! But who created the Andromedans? They obviously must have come somewhere. Where they evolved? And what faraway aliens made the Andromedans for their own grand school studies". We all believe this: In the beginning there was something that had NOT been created. And that increased thing that always was, went on to make everything else. The question is, was that uncreated thing a sentient being or not.

Natalie James •••• Here s the question that bothers me : Why do they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school, and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Is it because they want to enlighten us? "The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire "Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C. Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on RU-vid. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."

@@williamspringer9447 Wrong. Just be cause the numbers may be large, it does not stretch to impossibility. Neither does the fact that our extremely limited knowledge of the immense universe does not currently know of any other forms of life make ours more or less probable. And the fact that this type of life occurred here is simply due to the circumstances of what existed here - NOT that it was created specifically for this type of life. See hole:puddle

We VERY CLEARLY F know there is no invisible dude in the clouds. Grow up. omg.

I agree regardless of what's true this world could use more compassion and love always. I'll tell you one thing I do know. Us humans, even the animals. Us living beings. We're here on earth with each other. We should remember that every living being is deserving of respect and love. All living things feel and experience. Life's hard enough. We need to uplift each other as fellow earthlings. As fellow living beings. Love your post!

I see what you did there

PS 137, and many other places, shows Yaweh's great love of destroying, killing and torturing children to death. See also the great flood, passoever, etc. If you respect this baby killing monster, you don't deserve respect or rudeness, you deserve to not exist.

this debate was over 200 years ago

I studied up to a masters in science and graduated with honors. I have a job and serve people. You can do that without college.

Immortal, there is so much you can do online. Regarding degrees or not. Stay teachable…keep learning all of your life

Learning is wonderful but please don't feel you missed out on any genuine learning in school. The majority of what's taught in school is provable deception. All these supposedly "scientific" theories have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting them: 1) Macro-evolution (theory that one kind of life form can evolve into a new kind) 2) Heliocentric theory (outer space) 3) The theory of gravity (the theory for WHY heavy objects fall down) 4) Globe Earth theory (All independently verifiable evidence shows Earth's surface does not curve) And many more... especially related to health and medicine. Geocentric Flat Earth is reality, not Heliocentric Globe Earth theory & we didn't evolve from any animal. Heavy objects fall down due to relative density & buoyancy with the downward vector caused by incoherent electrostatic acceleration. There is no new virus and there's no need to get the jab... those ideas are promoted by corrupt Scientism, not real science. The general idea of Materialism is false but functional as creating the illusion of this reality with physical rules in which nothing is actually "real" but the experiences we have within it are. You are not your body, you're much more than that. No one really "dies" or "suffers" in this game we're playing. Guard your thoughts carefully as they're much more powerful & consequential than we've been taught to believe. Choosing love over fear is #1 most important thing you can do.

I don’t know how old you are, but I went back to school at age 40. I remember sitting in school at community college wondering if I could actually do it. Now I am on the last semester of graduate program getting my masters in applied behavior analysis. It’s never too late, trust me, I know.

@@lightbeforethetunnel I'd be interested in seeing one of those proofs, if you have it available. (At least, I interpreted your second sentence to mean that there is proof that some of those ideas you listed are deceptions; if you meant that they are deceptive yet still provable, then perhaps I misunderstood your point.) Could you also explain what you mean by "scientific evidence"? I would like to better understand your view, since according to the definition of scientific evidence that I normally use, there is quite a bit for at least several of the ideas you listed.

Yes

Glad to hear that I guess I'm in for a treat.

If you are defending an invisible sky daddy there are no facts. WAKE UP.

You still did not show any opinion!

@@emilianv3169 .

Abiogenesis is impossible at any level. Spontaneous generation was disproved hundreds of years ago.

Intellectual luxury is defined by articulation/sophistication of argument and not accent.

@@stinksterrekerinski4450 Well Creation lost out the gate then. All they have is a God they can't even prove exists. lost cause if you ask me.

@@jerrylong6238 Can't prove to who? You? I can prove God exists to me and that's all that I'm expected to prove it to. I can tell you how to prove it to yourself but I feel that would be wasting my time and yours considering your attitude. Humility goes a long way...much further than your pride...parading around like you know something but you have no clue how to prove it to yourself. You will learn...hopefully.

@@peli_candude554 Lol what a load of garbage. Something that you “can only prove to yourself”. LOL That’s useless by definition, so who cares? And yes, you’d be wasting EVERYONE’s time. Then the “humility”, “parading around”, “like you know something”. Yeah, that’s how SCIENCE WORKS, it doesn’t give a shit about your attitude, it works HARD to PROVE TRUTHS. No one has any need or time for YOUR self indulgent internal fantasies about how things work.

​@@peli_candude554 It all comes down to pride

James Shapiro has laid out the basis for natural genetic engineering pretty well in Evolution 2.0. The Nobel Prize was awarded in 1983 to Dr. Barbara McClintock for her work which demonstrated the genome is a read write organelle of the cell. Jumping forward to the maturation of epigenetics, systems biology and so forth, at this point saying the cells had no decision in the process is a perspective which science hasn’t held for easily 50 years or more.

Yeah, well welcome to RU-vid, where the lazy and idiots like to watch videos that support their beliefs rather than doing any actual research or work on learning truths.

Adam Courtney ••• People who believe in an intelligent designer , based on the overwhelming evidence, do not necessarily subscribe to the beliefs of organized religion. Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?(The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto) I guarantee you that if our government thought that making us believe in Zeus would make us twice as productive and easier to control , they would be teaching Zeus in our public schools right now. Our government has turned its back on Christianity because atheism makes better drones . They can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly. That's the stuff revolutions are made of. P.S. There is overwhelming reliable evidence to prove the existence of God, regardless what government stooges say. "The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire "Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.

@@williamspringer9447 let me guess, you're a young earth creationist Christian

Raiyyan Siddiqui••• Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ? Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on RU-vid. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."

@@williamspringer9447 I must reject the premises of your argument from the outset. Is gravity a "guided process"? I ask this question because it seems creationists believe the only alternative to a guided process must be randomness. But, gravity is not random. We know exactly what happens when we let go of something we're holding: it falls. This natural constant allows us to make observations and predictions with repeatable results. The laws of physics are consistent, unguided, but also not random. If the theory of gravitation were somehow disproved, would the new answer automatically be that angels have been pulling objects towards the earth at 9.81 meters per second squared, OR, is "we don't know" an acceptable response until further study can be done? The answer is obvious. So, when ID proponents attempt to poke holes in evolution, why do they think this lends ANY credibility to their own position by default? I'm sorry, but you need to support your own position. There is always some kind of fallacious reasoning involved when appealing to a supernatural cause for anything, particularly because the supernatural is so ill defined and unfalsifiable. Bayesian probability is the most dishonest of all apologetic attempts because it plugs in variables for which we have no precedent or parallel to reference. For instance, if you have a six-sided die, you know you have a one in six chance of rolling a 4. The probability changes with the number of sides you add. If you flip a coin 100 times and each time it lands on heads, what are the chances it will land on heads the next time? The answer is always 50/50. There is only one universe that we know of... a one-sided die. No calculations can be made for things that we know have only occurred once. It's even worse for events that have never happened before, such as a resurrection. How would a theologian determine the difference between something that is truly supernatural and something that is natural but just outside of our current realm of scientific understanding?

DJ A-BOMB ••• The premises of my argument are true. Premise #1 is self-evident . Premise #2, I could support with mountains of evidence. The conclusion logically follows. “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” -Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibers by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 10^15 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 10^15, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain! Despite the enormity of the number of connections, the ramifying forest of fibers is not a chaotic random tangle but a highly organized network in which a high proportion of the fibers are unique adaptive communication channels following their own specially ordained pathway through the brain. Even if only one hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized, this would still represent a system containing a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth." -Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA “From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of Carbon 12 to the 7.12 Mev level in Oxygen 16. if you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” -Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge Astrophysicist, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections “Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.” -Lee Smolin, American theoretical physicist, "Life of the Cosmos"

Assuming you could recreate primitive earthlike conditions in an earth-sized lab, it would take ~1 billion years for life to emerge. Is that the experiment you are proposing?

I noticed you mentioned that the cell is complex enough to appear to require a designer, but you still don't give the ID position very much merit. Let me ask you this. All us human beings, with the exception of a few here and there, have the same basic/main body parts and move/function the same way. So if we came to exist over time and chance, as the evolution viewpoint suggests, why are we all the same? Because if you leave intelligent design out of it, aside from one or two things, there's no guarantee that nature would've came to exist and work exactly like does now. It's like with Artificial Intelligence. If Artificial Intelligence requires intelligence to come to exist, then why should intelligence like ours be any different? Wouldn't it take a being, even if it is supernatural, with intelligence to make/create another being with intelligence? Just a thought...

@@ReligiousG ??? You’re not a making a point even though you think you are. Why are we all the same? Because we ALL REPRODUCED ALONG THE SAME TIMELINE. Why would we be different? Makes no sense. “There’s no guarantee that nature”… no kidding. There wasn’t and ISN’T a PLANNED OUTCOME. It’s all happenstance and you’re part of it, end of story. Artificial intelligence is a term coined by mankind to describe man made systems to simulate real world intelligence. Other than some functions, one has NOTHING to do with the other as far as origins, goals, outcomes, etc. Your comment has nothing to say.

The entire process of science is ABOUT testing and disproving concepts, and it is NEVER above doubt or changing. That’s the POINT. It’s also what lifts it above non-moving, irrefutable religion.

👉🤔🙏❤️ I CAN RELATE TO WHERE YOUR COMING 😉🦋🙏 FROM 😃🙏🙂👈🏽👉 I KNOW THE PEOPLE DEBATING I BELIEVE THAT IT'LL BE A VERY RESPECTFUL DEBATE 🙂😉☕🌹👈🏽

Is god aware or ask also himself if where he comes from? This question will be infinite if we are aware whether god or human being.

That's the point. The only locations where life will emerge in the first place to ponder questions like origins of life is where the conditions are already conducive. But some ppl take it farther than that, and go on to say that: the arrangement MUST have something to put it together...that something MUST be a single conscious being, and that conscious being MUST be the deity of the religion they have chosen. They say it's silly that ppl think simple fundamental particles can just pop into existence or always existed, but at the same time want ppl to accept that a complex, conscious god-thing just popped into existence or always existed. Mind games is all I see.

@@lawlaw295 I am not one for creation ex nihilo as per monotheistic beliefs, but if we are to be honest, it's not even close to as philosophically absurd as believing in the Big Bang theory, which presupposes that everything in an instant came from nothing, or further ideation of a multiverse (more religion). To me, it's still a bona-fide mystery. If anything, I lean towards the metaphysics of the ancient Greek emmanationists (Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus).

@@lawlaw295 Check out a RU-vid channel, Theoria Apophasis. Ken Wheeler has some pretty interesting ideas to this effect. Highly recommend.

@@AdilJustinTheriault Well those persons who are saying that the Big Bang says that everything popped into existence from nothing need to be called out for misrepresenting the theory of cosmic inflation (which is what ppl call the big bang).

Rana is not the only one that accepts miracles to explain the unknown. Secular scientists do it all the time too, to explain their unknowns, if not, then at the very least, to explain conclusions based on UNOBSERVABLE events. Meaning faith is required. Similarly of characteristics does not necessarily imply common ancestry every time.

Dr. Rana claims Genesis the sun was made visible to a hypothetical earthbound observer on the fourth day. And that 'day' means an undefined long time. He hypothesis is in response to creation of the Sun following the creation of the Earth being demonstrably false. Yet he provides no evidence of the revealing of the Sun. He doesn't even provide a mechanism of how the Sun was hidden and then revealed. I find Rr. Rana's arguments from ignorance unconvincing.

mary me?

Faz is my boy, but I was also looking forward to him debating a biologist too.

I agree completely with you, Lenka. Also, Dr. Rana near the end compares science's claim that solutions to today's "unsolvable" problems are just yet to be solved problems by naturalistic methods is the same type of "faith" if you will that creationists believe in. In other words when we say well we just haven't figured that out yet, we are no better then the ID proponents saying it was God. I have to disagree vehemently with that idea. We have demonstrated by all the we know in science and all the problems we have solved in science today so far that there is a precedent that we can solve these problems. With the age of reason manifesting only a few hundred years ago, this is the blink of an eye, (or maybe a few blinks), on the scale human existence. There is no precedent that creationism is the solution to anything, or provides us with any new useful knowledge or explanations.

You only consider it a verbosity fallacy because you don't understand the scientific basis for his argument.

@@TheErik150x boy, the replication crisis identified in 2011 that has only been getting worse, was not kind to this comment

If you enjoyed the atheist position, how can you be a believer? The two are opposites.

That's some Kent Hovind level derp right there

Two of the worst theories ever created are the Big Bang theory & Evolution theory. Neither are worth the paper they are written on.

A B yeah but a man walking on water is legit

​@@atleastimnotgae2124 Your disbelief does not mean it never happened. Witnesses documented that it did happen--so, whatever you think is really your limitation. More importantly, is that your response is a deflection because even you don't believe evolution is true--but you put up with the fraud because you despise the consequences of the truth. Evolutioners pretend their beliefs are 'scientific fact'--when pressed to show compelling/convincing proof or evidence & a cogent explanation for verify their purported 'evolution is a scientific fact'--they can only produce half-baked evidence that no sane, intelligent, honest, rational, & informed person would ever consider to be valid/true--you know--except for atheists & other nitwits--they don't require such information to believe & falsely promote their 'fact' claim lies. They would have us believe we evolved from microbes to mankind & our ancestors crawled up out of the seas & eventually morphed into mankind--which is pure fiction/rubbish. Tossing in unlimited time also doesn't result in their myth being a reality--it just results in lots of time.

A B expansion of universe - observed. Background microwave radiation - observed, gravity waves - observed. BBT is THE current theory for good reason, there is data to support it.

You speak of evolution as if it's an entity in itself. "Evolution" doesn't attempt to explain anything because it is a figment of the imagination. A theory within the minds of men who refuse to acknowledge the truth of our origin. Micro evolution is apart of life, yes, but macro is an idea of the mind.

Aspire7 That's like saying you believe in minutes but not days. Why are there 30,000 different species of spiders?

+Joe Giuffre You can't use logic (minutes in a day) to define a fallacy. There is evidence for how many minutes are in a day. There is no (empirical) evidence for animals mutating into another. There's no doubt that there are a variety of different kinds of animals, but that's no evidence for them changing into another animal over time. 30,000 different species of spiders is a model of adaptation. They're still spiders, no matter how much time you give them. Same with snakes, birds and so forth. They have a built in genetic code designed for adaptation.

Aspire7 But one minute doesn't change into a day. It takes many minutes. Those spiders aren't the same species. They can't mate with each other. That's the definition of macro evolution. There are 30,000 different species of spiders. There are 5,000 different species of mammals, of which humans are one. Using your logic, humans have evolved from earlier forms of mammals. That's good enough for me.

Joe Giuffre Using my logic, humans have evolved from earlier forms of mammals? Haha, that's cute (and religious). The ole swicheroo... That's your logic my friend, but if that's good enough for you, it's good enough for me. Your faith is amazing.

If evolution is wrong, it means your death. You have to accept that!

I will flip this around. You want us to show you God. I would like to show anything beyond microevolution. Simply assuming it so because we observe small changes is not sufficient. Show me proof that an animal of one kind (ie a dog) produces (or came from) a non-dog. It is a big mountain to climb.

Or show how information is added to a gene to improve an organism, or how the complex organism came to be formed, or how the codes were formed within DNA, or how chirality works, or.....etc etc.

@@kalebredick9591 No such thing as a kind, do you mean species? micro and macroevolution are both the same things. Both are evolution, one is just further along than the other is all. But they are not separate things. After so many small changes some species no longer resemble each other. You simply do not have a good understanding of how evolution works.

So, are you saying, even today, that if a plant doesn't get sunlight for a day, it dies? And are you saying the creator of everything was not able to sustain the plants for a day? Or, did you forget, as ALL atheists do, that the first words of God were, ''let there be light and there was'' just before the first day of creation began? Atheists should please stop their deceitful tactics of lies.

the earth was formed (not created, because the creation of the earth was at the beginning which time is unknown) in 24-hours day periods ONLY and not in thousands of years like Muslims now claim about their incoherent Quran. The Holy Bible does not talk about the time the earth was created (not formed).

@@ingodwetrustgachatuber2747 __ The Intelligent Design proponent on stage is an Old Earth Creationist, which means he thinks each “Day” represents a long period of time (e.g., millions of years). Listen at around 54:58 to hear the speaker say it for himself. Old Earth Creationism is an indefensible position and the ID proponent is sadly a compromised Christian. Life, the universe, and everything was Created by God in six literal days about six thousand years ago (give or take a few years). The Earth is not billions of years old - that’s utterly absurd. God did not Create man through a process of death and suffering. That’s also patently absurd.

God's light

So men search God out, building character

@@jacobhodge7402 yeah, the whole “mystery” thing is absolutely the language of con men. (The writers of the bible and consequent religions)

tedgrant2 I absolutely agree with you.

Yeah thats cool. But humans are light years away from engineering. You cant compare the two. What you learned had nothing to do with evolution or intelligent design.

The burden of proof is on you. The Bible has claimed and has been accepted as the historical record of the universe for millenia.

Argotha I don’t know who has accepted the bible as historical, maybe to Christians. There is no evidence that supports any aspect of the bible.

Giving up is saying a living cell created itself with DNA and RNA built in it and the cell can replicate itself. Saying that statement is giving up. Especially if you have zero evidence to support your claim. I'm more interested in finding out what designed us at this point. I don't care if it an superior alien race or intelligent beings outside of our dimension. I want to know who designed DNA. Because natural chemical substances don't create living cells at all

@@SimSim-zf9ifAll nature is driven by very intelligent laws. Nothing exists outside of these laws of nature. You only need to reflect deeply with both an open mind and an open heart to be able to appreciate the fact that naturalism is not a random phenomenon that just popped into existence with all the rigid laws it exhibits which run the universe. Why is it so difficult for some people to admit that these intelligent, working laws could only have come into existence from a force outside of nature (apt to be described as a supernatural entity), which had consciousness, vision, intelligence, creativity and foresight. Man, who created the automobile, exists outside of the mechanical realm, just as the being that created nature, exists outside of the natural realm and is thus referred to as a supernatural being. It's as simple as that.

@@storypalacetv3038 WRONG. Your first sentence is ENTIRELY an assumption. Now go ahead and delete the rest of your comment until you have data on the first line. Science DOESN’T “reflect deeply with an open mind and and open heart”. That’s bullshit speak. Science runs tests, observes with instruments, makes hypotheses and tests them, including trying to DISPROVE them as much as possible and GATHERS DATA to create theories that can be repeated and are predictive. People don’t “admit” to truth or realities, they PROVE THEM. Try it for once. There’s nothing “simple as that” by you just CLAIMING it. PROVE IT.

Evolutionary science is based on cold, hard FACTS. Not “posturing” or “playing games”, ffs. In “asking” about an intelligent agent, you need to do the HARD WORK and PROVE that agent exists and determine the processes and designs involved. You’re simply lazily injecting your nonsensical incredulation and ignorance into your prior held beliefs without actually LEARNING anything.

Kent hovind has debates on his channel

That's a well known modus operandi.

You didn't really expect a philosopher to actually concede anything, did you?

Theologos ••• Intelligent design theory can be logically defended , while scripture not so much. It is wise in a debate to focus on the weakest elements of your opponents argument , if your intention is to persuade your audience . Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ? Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on RU-vid. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."

@@williamspringer9447 I mean, the rate we believed the universe expanded at was recently discovered to be wrong and the issue with your argument and amny arguments against atheistic views is the idea of a beginning, when that's not what science believes it is, they believed it was the earliest point we could find evidence for and couldn't know what happened before that, but now there is a theory called conformal cyclic cosmology, advanced by Roger Penrose, who found evidence of an older universe through hawking points and the energy radiated from the black hole discovered(he also assisted in that) that theorizes that the universe is an infinite cycle of expansion then compression and decay and each iteration is began with "bing bang" removes removes the idea that something had to create the universe, and if you are unable to believe that the universe just always existed, why are you able to believe that for a creator and not what has been physically observed?

@@williamspringer9447 Same nonsense bill. Doesn’t get anymore valid by reposting it.

According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”​-Genesis 2:4.

@@Melkor3001 Excellent reply, you beat me to it. There are many instances in archaic Hebrew where the word Yohm can refer to indefinite period of time or a day. Perfect reply my friend.

you know that evolution take milions if not billions of years to make the biome you know right now, do you think in your right state of mind tha t we will be the same a thousand years ahead? or we would evolve

If you want to explore this topic further look into how single celled heterotrophic organisms metobalise. Look into human cells and how they digest. Look into digestive system of hydras, worms, molluscan and so on. Stomach and the entirety of digestive system evolved from simple lysosomes, ferments, citoplasm and digestive vacuoles which evolved from even simpler predecessors. All bodily systems that mamals and birds have came from simpler analogues of our ancestors.

@@Alathea123 we are the same thousands of years, we have no reason to believe we will not be the same twice the thousands of years.

You need to study evolution a WHOLE LOT MORE, chief. The end processes that we see now are all built up in tiny steps, not all at once. Get the basic concepts correct before you try again.

@@outofthebox7 Wrong.

Well stated! Nothing can't make everything!

yes, because 'obviously', if A causes B, then B mustve caused A. thats the genius of christian research XD

Sorry but I am lost???

yeah, i bet...

Thanks for the clarification. :)

"Respect to the guy who gave a naturalistic explanation - well behaved, well presented" - If the naturalistic explanation is false, it will cost you your life because you said the false one was true.

I don't know, why did you? 😅

@@biddiemutter3481 Probably because it’s the closest thing that fits reviewing public info/life to this day? Were you really looking for a response? I don’t think there’s a true answer.

@@kaltrex9465, no not really. .. sorry

@@biddiemutter3481 Might want to ask yourself why you asked

@ SayNoToDogma Would you define what you mean by 'miraculous'? Would you consider the unguided emergence of life from non-life to be miraculous? How about the emergence of the universe from nothing? Is natural universal common ancestry miraculous? How about a gilled fish developing lungs through unguided random processes? The naturalist explanations are founded on miraculous events.

Dave Biddle Are you being coy and playing word games? I am quite sure you know that a man coming back from 1 3/4 hours of being dead, and living a normal life thereafter, has had a miracle. I'm quite sure you know that for surgically removed small intestines to be restored after prayers is a miracle. If you want to get into denial about that and say "Well, that's not my definition of a miracle" what can I say? You miss out. And if you continue on that path you miss out on more than you can imagine. The people who experienced their miracles didn't miss out however. That's all I have to say as I have no time for games.

You need to start saying no to dogma. Then maybe you will think a little clearer about this. Before any understanding of the history of religion and the significance and meaning of its literature, you might want to start without narrow assumptions. The question as to whether or not Darwin's theory is viable is the question as to whether or not a workable explanation has been given for the argument against intelligence in nature. You are confusing argument with assumption. You believe there has to be a "natural" explanation therefore you see the idea of intelligence guiding natural forces as miraculous. Why don't we do what good scientists should do and keep an open mind and investigate the evidence?

So are you trying to avoid the fact that natural processes are undeniably unlikely to have created (no pun intended) what we see today? You can assume that the natural processes are more likely, but you have 2 problems. 1) You haven't proven that the natural processes are correct. 2) You haven't negated or proved God wrong.

It makes sense of you start from the notion there's an allpowerful, all-knowing/seeing and always been present gawd. Then evidence isn't important to you, cos you can explain or explain away ANY- and EVERYTHING with the delusional concept of gawd....

Your statement has one very serious flaw. You will never see some organ developing where you can claim it will have a given function within 10 thousand years. You will never see half formed features or organs, ever. Evolution has no future goals, it does not work like that. Every structure that is evolving has a current use in the present. So no you won't see new things developing. That statement goes against evolution by making it seem it has some end game.

Example: Human identical twins each have unique DNA by the time they are born. The DNA is very close, but it is not identical. What is your explanation for the divergence? Mine is random' mutations.

@@globalcoupledances This is not an answer, a cheap excuse, a cover for ignorance.

yeah that is one of many creation stories, for example "Know thou, O tormentor of thy foes, that the entire world rests on Vishnu. The great Vishnu creates the totality of creatures, moving and unmoving. In him they go to their reabsorption, from Him they originate." how do you select the one you believe?

But can you explain god outside your bible? I heard that Noah ark and flood is just a children story. Hindu Veda explain different myths on origin of life.and may be Islamic Quran may tell different.

WRONG. The goal of debates can be defined as whatever you want. But it is NOT the job, role or purpose of science or any other truth seeking process to present “both sides of the debate”, “think about both sides” or “consider the other possibility” when there have been hard facts determined, quality studies performed and repeatable, predictable outcomes determined on the Evolution side. Creationism and ID, have ZERO information on a DESIGNER, DESIGNS, a DESIGN PROCESS for ANY of the concepts they put forward. IF there is a designer to be found, then put in the hard WORK, TIME, and MONEY to LEARN THE TRUTHS about your concept. At this point in time, creationism has earned ZERO reason to be presented as “the other possibility”.

@@pkrpdl7325 jeez this is so old X). But yeah. It's easy. God is defined in the Judaeo-christian framework as "that from which all things come." Or using the Aristotelian framework: "the unactualized actualizer." Definitionally, everybody believes in God in the way I have framed it, and to argue against such a God would be to argue against everything that is within the category of "creator". Therefore it is absurd to argue against. The only question is whether He has personality and will, or not. For instance, I know it might be somewhat antiquated now, but to say that the Big Bang was the result of the expansion of the Inflaton is to say, under this framework, that the Inflaton is God. But this God doesn't have personality or will yet. I think, in order to determine whether God has personality, it's quite simple. There was a study on prayer a few years back, which found that patients who were prayed for recovered at a 10% lower rate. This proves two things. 1) that prayer has some force, and 2) that it is not the force that we expect. What this means is that 1) there is an entity which receives wishes/prayers/whatever you wanna call them, and 2) that He doesnt follow strict laws that we can perceive. This is the only scientific study that I know of that tested the idea of God having a will. If you know of others, then that would be cool. But beyond that study, we would probably need to go into the fields of history, ethics, epistemology, sufficient causality, and the like in order to figure it out. I think the best chance at discovering it, though, is just to ask Him, and be open to whatever answer you receive. That's really how I figured it out.

@@DoctorShocktor lol, I don't think you read my comment from all those years ago. But also you're just wrong. Sure, reinventing the wheel isn't the job of science, but being open to every possibility within the natural world is it's job. I'm not a young earth creationist anymore, but your dogmatic stance on some ephemeral "science," is part of what's wrong with the scientific community. It is the job of every truth seeking process to consider both sides of a discussion, because it is only through this process that we no longer believe the earth is the center of the universe, the brain is fixed, and Newton's laws are the best approach to the universe. You, my friend, just expressed the opinion of the Catholic church in Galileo's day.

@@churchoftheformerdaysaints I just laugh and ridicule christians. I don't have a worry in the world. and that's what makes their weak little brains cry like bitches. lmfao

To be clear, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.So the title is silly.

They teach of angel wings and morals while hiding their incisors

Go ahead and comment Pastor Mike. I would love to know what you think. 🤔

@@gfujigo Greetings, this is Pastor Mike Benjamins, Jr. Of Oregon [May 30, 2021]. The following narrative is one of the numerous written responses I have published. It may not precisely respond to a specific video or debate but, it generally creates a glimpse into my views: * ORIGIN OF LIFE, How Life Started on Earth: FROM THE PASTOR: For the record, Yes, I do seriously believe in the Biblical Creator-GOD and His Word. If you nonbelievers opt not to believe as I do,.... have at it. I would visit you from the glory of GOD's Kingdom but, I may not be able to find you in the expanse of nothingness and nonexistence which some believe follows this earthy, fleshly existence. We must all take the responsibility and live with the consequences of our choices (like an adult). Here we go again, nonbelievers regaling us with stories of "solid science" victories and accomplishments. Just one thing, however, we do not get to ride on the coattails of solid science in order to pass off bad science or no science at all (faith-based scientific beliefs or "Scientism") as if it were solid science, often riding on the strength of credentialism alone. Balderdash is balderdash, my friends. I do not believe that the Biblical GOD is superior to any other real gods because, there are no other real gods. Man(kind) may behave as if he were a god but that does not make him one. Yes. science has come up with studies and facts, that's true. But, science has also been hijacked by, let us say, those who have imaginations run amuck and exercise powers they have not truly earned, to bring us some of the worst hypothetical models trying to float on a solid science life raft. Now, as to mixing science and GOD, that is inevitable. The reason is that GOD is the Creator and, when we study His Creation we end up discovering His Creative Hand. We've already gone down that road with the complex genetic information existing in the DNA molecule. Not long ago, I wrote: * "Hello again, this is Pastor Mike. All this debate about "Mean-Old Acids" [Amino acids] doesn't really get us anywhere. * If I understood my studies correctly, No matter where amino acids are discovered outside of a living cell, they will not link together to form proteins outside of an already living cell. That is the basis of the principle of Biogenesis. Thus, it supports creation by an intelligence. Moreover, only proteins containing all left-handed amino acids will work in living things. It is akin to a puzzle with the picture side up. If one turns a puzzle piece over, it will not fit. The amino acids that form, without an intelligence, are both right-handed and left-handed which is problematic for Abiogenesis. In the Miller-Urey experiment, the amino acids were half LH and half RH. Correctly ordered LH amino acids are linked together by a molecular apparatus (protein manufacturing machine) inside the already living cell, driven by the complex genetic information (instructions) already existing in the DNA molecule. * As to amino acids forming life wherever there is water, outside a living cell, that doesn't work either because, as I understand it, the amino acids tend to disperse in water. Thus, this whole business of amino acids somehow forming a living cell by Abiogenesis, over extremely long periods of time, is just about impossible (as the mathematics, quoted as "10 to the 159th power" appears to indicate). We may then conclude that the so-called organic soup of the primordial pool of pond scum, is no substitute for the protein building mechanism existing inside an already living cell. I'm afraid that these facts that relate to the Biogenesis model are compelling in the face of Abiogenesis proponents. * Thus, the notion that life arose from matter alone, abiogenesis style, without a creative intelligence involved, which I claim to be the Biblical GOD, in a chemistry to biology fashion, cannot be sustained. Various scientists can put forth a hypothetical model, which exists as a scientific belief hoping to be proven but, it is a far, far cry from being a fact. Scientific "guesses," relying heavily upon the strength of credentials alone, are not to be mistaken for cut-and-dried solid science. An educated guess is still a guess, not a fact. I will be keeping an eye on what science comes up with but, meanwhile, we should understand that claims of abiogenesis in the far distant past constitute an alleged event that no man can have observed. Pastor Mike. 2-18-17 @ 6:33 P.M. * This is not a comment or reply intended for a specific individual, even though some statements were inspired by individual commentary. It is simply a statement made by me for anyone and everyone. I am not inviting debate or argumentation, which I will not engage in. The information people seek is out there if one cares to look. In future statements, I may or may not opt to cite points and authorities. Take care. Pastor Mike. 2-25-17 @ 2:40 P.M.?

@@gfujigo I posted a reply/comment on 5-30-21. It is fairly detailed. It's hard to believe I posted my original statement four years ago. Anyway, it may be under [hidden] replies to my first statement. From: Pst. MBJR. 5-30-21 @ 7:23 P.M. Oregon Time. All my standard rules and disclaimers apply.

The fact that something looks designed does not mean it is. That was the point. It is about finding out whether or not what seems to be the case actually is the case, and of course then the answer to the question of design would be "no."

...a 7 ft. long DNA strand...is not designed ???...that holds a universe of information???...that is in each of 100 trillion cells in the body...???...I beg to differ...

Lonnie Christopher Of course you can differ in opinion or intuition, but it's about what you can find evidence for. Simply saying design is obvious to you doesn't mean anything to me.

Your posts have not "accidentally" fallen from the internet sky......they are EVIDENCE of design......What is the probability that your last message accidentally got typed ?????....that is evidence.....

Lonnie Christopher I agree. Our common background knowledge tells us that posts on the internet most likely don't happen accidentally. I don't know how that relates at all to the evolution of the cell, though.

Yes it dooooes, lil boy!! Replication, errors, selection. RNA world hypothesis is an example. You can't avoid the darwinian mechanism, since it's the only mechanism capable of doing anything you want.

Except orgins of species definitely apply to living species. Orgin means the very beginning. I hate when you guys say that.

@@pharoahakhenaten6630 origin of species is entirely different than origin of life. Evolution explains the origin of species because it describes how the many species have arisen from other species, but it says absolutely nothing about how life as we know it came from non-life. It says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life, and to claim it does is to set up a straw man just so you can feel like you've won something no one is arguing.

@@lauroneto3360 The theory of evolution makes no claims whatsoever about how non-life created life. It only refers to the changes in the proportions of biological types in a population over time. I don't know why you would insist that it claims to explain Abiogenesis, but it does not. Now, the word evolution is used quite often in its colloquial form (i.e. the evolution of language), so if you're using the term that way then the point is moot as you're not even talking about the theory, just using the word loosly.

@@thcknast abiogenesis incorporates evolution (as it is defined). Random changes and natural selection as the producer of more complex novelties. That's the point here.

ChristianMetalFan100 well he's also not a biologist, so..

@@robertoesquivel4447 and theres still no evidence that abiogenesis created the life we evolved from, its a hyopotheses, based on probabillity......but dont tell the creatards...theyll make it into " atheists say theres no gawd!!!!",

On the other hand, atheists just add the time as in ``long ago`` to anything which means both are flawed which is expected in these debates.

Vlado S It's not about atheism, science looks at what we can see around us, for example in geology, plate tectonics, radiology etc. and extrapolate to try to figure out how old the Earth is. So no, they/we do not simply add time on randomly - so how is it a flawed argument?

All Life requires information. Information only comes Intelligence.

Every Darwinian I've seen in debates, leans on cartoon drawings (made in error) of 3 "transitional forms"....that simply show extinct species....and say, "...see....see...there are the transitional forms".....and I'm yawning......

Lonnie Christopher Then you can't have seen many debates

Re- "how can we be so arrogant to have all the answers?" - who is saying we do? Certainly not most intelligent people of any philosophical nature. Spirituality and it's equivalence with or difference from popular historical religious is not very well defined in common language I think. The ultimate nature of the existence of the Universe or by extension multiverses should they exist is I think still a profound question to which no one has THE answer. But the current mainstream naturalistic philosophy that permeates scientific thought is one that does for good reason. We have yet needed to yield to divine intervention to explain anything, and after a mere few hundred years of scientific reasoning to conclude 'times up" - if you can't explain it now completely by naturalistic process you never will, well that just seems wholly irrational and biased towards inserting biased preconceived notions of the supernatural into the scheme of things.

B Charron So you area religious nut after all, well done

@@fartpooboxohyeah8611 "shouldn't question" (without "be") and "people's knowledge" (possessive apostrophe). Humility my friend.

Creationist are coming to the conclusion of intelligent design because the mechanism they are viewing under the microscope points to that. You act as if these highly educated scientists aren't doing any independent research at all. The system of a living cell is an enclosed system. Chemistry and the conditions of the early earth or the "hypothesis" of what the early earth was like, just doesn't create life. If scientists are interfering within a scientific experiment that automatically gives a win to intelligent design. Science has to prove life can take chemistry elements left alone in the atmosphere untouched can assemble itself into a living cell. Saying the phrase "millions of years" is a cheat and load of crap. DNA is why Creationist accept intelligent design, not because scientists can't prove life created itself

Pound4Pound ••• Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school, and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us?

@@pound4pound380 I've been trying to use intelligent design to explain apples falling from trees. So far I got some encouraging results. I got this idea after viewing the mechanics of apple's falling from trees. Now you know why I'm eager to peruse this idea but I hit a wall here. I want to experiment or simply consider what intelligence is and how it can exist or do anything without any know form of existence. But I can't do experiments until physicists give up on explaining the apple falling from the tree. They just keep using the phrase "mass under the influence of gravity" but that's a cheat and a load of crap. What's next I suppose chemistry is a thing too huh. Besides inferring how the apple falls is an automatic win for intelligent design.

Or so one would think... COVID teaches us otherwise.

If we go back to people's minds 2000 years ago, in the time of Jesus. These people think that today's human being is a god who can fool today's technology. But we know we are not God, but this technology was the result of our brain's evolution. Somehow, if we're at the center of evolution, that another humanoid species on Earth evolves in other directions like the angels, maybe they're looking at what we were doing 2,000 years ago, but we can't understand them and we call them gods also.

Science Quotes “The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.” - Albert Einstein “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” - Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28 “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life-almost contrived-you might say a ‘put-up job’.” - Dr. Paul Davies (noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University) “...how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” - Professor Steven Weinberg (Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics [a field of science that deals with the very early universe], writing in the journal “Scientific American”.) “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Isaac Newton (“General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton. 1687) 16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” - Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16 (for more of these coincidences click here) “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.” - Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist) Probably the leading paleontologist alive today, Simon Conway Morris, the scientist who discovered the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life, writes in his seminal book, Life’s Solutions, that he is “convinced” that nature’s success in the lottery of life has “metaphysical implications.” “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” - Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9. “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck (founder of the quantum theory and one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century) “...The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system: it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet…could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written…” - Dr. Michael Denton (Australian microbiologist) “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” - George Ellis (British astrophysicist) Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30 “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” - John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA) Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” - Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83. “It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.” “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” -Anthony Flew Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater “It has occurred to me lately-I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities-that both questions [the origin of consciousness in humans and of life from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality-that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals. In them the universe begins to know itself.” - George Wald, (Noble laureate and professor of biology at Harvard University) wrote this in an article entitled “Life and Mind in the Universe” which appeared in the peer-reviewed journal the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology, symposium 11 (1984): 1-15. “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter-not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.” - Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931). “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” - George Greenstein (American astronomer) Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic, Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, (1988), pp. 26-27 “What turns a mere piece of matter from being mere matter into an animated being? What gives certain special physical patterns in the universe the mysterious privilege of feeling sensations and having experiences?” - D.R. Hofstadter “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” - Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface. “When I went to the moon I was a pragmatic test pilot. But when I saw the planet Earth floating in the vastness of space the presence of divinity became almost palpable and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident.” - Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 Astronaut) “A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” - John Wheeler (American physicist) Wheeler, John A. “Foreword,” in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. (Oxford, U. K.: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. vii. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” - Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the radiation afterglow (Quoted in Walter Bradley, “The ‘Just-so’ Universe: The Fine-Tuning of Constants and Conditions in the Cosmos,” in William Dembski and James Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence. 168) “We go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. We give little thought to the machinery that generates the sunlight that makes life possible, to the gravity that glues us to an Earth that would otherwise send us spinning off into space, or to the atoms of which we are made and on whose stability we fundamentally depend. Except for children (who don’t know enough not to ask the important questions), few of us spend much time wondering why nature is the way it is; where the cosmos came from, or whether it was always here; if time will one day flow backward and effects precede causes; or whether there are ultimate limits to what humans can know.” - Carl Sagan (From an introduction to “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking) “As long as you are occupied with the mathematical sciences and the technique of logic, you belong to those who walk around the palace in search of the gate… When you complete your study of the natural sciences and get a grasp of the metaphysics, you enter into the inner courtyard and are in the same house as [G-d the King].” - Moses Maimonides “This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow (God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.) “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Science Quotes “The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.” - Albert Einstein “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” - Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28 “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life-almost contrived-you might say a ‘put-up job’.” - Dr. Paul Davies (noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University) “...how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” - Professor Steven Weinberg (Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics [a field of science that deals with the very early universe], writing in the journal “Scientific American”.) “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Isaac Newton (“General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton. 1687) 16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” - Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16 (for more of these coincidences click here) “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.” - Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist) Probably the leading paleontologist alive today, Simon Conway Morris, the scientist who discovered the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life, writes in his seminal book, Life’s Solutions, that he is “convinced” that nature’s success in the lottery of life has “metaphysical implications.” “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” - Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9. “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck (founder of the quantum theory and one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century) “...The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system: it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet…could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written…” - Dr. Michael Denton (Australian microbiologist) “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” - George Ellis (British astrophysicist) Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30 “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” - John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA) Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” - Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83. “It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.” “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” -Anthony Flew Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater “It has occurred to me lately-I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities-that both questions [the origin of consciousness in humans and of life from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality-that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals. In them the universe begins to know itself.” - George Wald, (Noble laureate and professor of biology at Harvard University) wrote this in an article entitled “Life and Mind in the Universe” which appeared in the peer-reviewed journal the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology, symposium 11 (1984): 1-15. “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter-not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.” - Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931). “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” - George Greenstein (American astronomer) Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic, Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, (1988), pp. 26-27 “What turns a mere piece of matter from being mere matter into an animated being? What gives certain special physical patterns in the universe the mysterious privilege of feeling sensations and having experiences?” - D.R. Hofstadter “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” - Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface. “When I went to the moon I was a pragmatic test pilot. But when I saw the planet Earth floating in the vastness of space the presence of divinity became almost palpable and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident.” - Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 Astronaut) “A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” - John Wheeler (American physicist) Wheeler, John A. “Foreword,” in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. (Oxford, U. K.: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. vii. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” - Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the radiation afterglow (Quoted in Walter Bradley, “The ‘Just-so’ Universe: The Fine-Tuning of Constants and Conditions in the Cosmos,” in William Dembski and James Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence. 168) “We go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. We give little thought to the machinery that generates the sunlight that makes life possible, to the gravity that glues us to an Earth that would otherwise send us spinning off into space, or to the atoms of which we are made and on whose stability we fundamentally depend. Except for children (who don’t know enough not to ask the important questions), few of us spend much time wondering why nature is the way it is; where the cosmos came from, or whether it was always here; if time will one day flow backward and effects precede causes; or whether there are ultimate limits to what humans can know.” - Carl Sagan (From an introduction to “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking) “As long as you are occupied with the mathematical sciences and the technique of logic, you belong to those who walk around the palace in search of the gate… When you complete your study of the natural sciences and get a grasp of the metaphysics, you enter into the inner courtyard and are in the same house as [G-d the King].” - Moses Maimonides “This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow (God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.) “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Science Quotes “The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.” - Albert Einstein “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” - Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28 “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life-almost contrived-you might say a ‘put-up job’.” - Dr. Paul Davies (noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University) “...how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” - Professor Steven Weinberg (Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics [a field of science that deals with the very early universe], writing in the journal “Scientific American”.) “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Isaac Newton (“General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton. 1687) 16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” - Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16 (for more of these coincidences click here) “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.” - Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist) Probably the leading paleontologist alive today, Simon Conway Morris, the scientist who discovered the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life, writes in his seminal book, Life’s Solutions, that he is “convinced” that nature’s success in the lottery of life has “metaphysical implications.” “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” - Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9. “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck (founder of the quantum theory and one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century) “...The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system: it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet…could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written…” - Dr. Michael Denton (Australian microbiologist) “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” - George Ellis (British astrophysicist) Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30 “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” - John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA) Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” - Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83. “It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.” “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” -Anthony Flew Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater “It has occurred to me lately-I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities-that both questions [the origin of consciousness in humans and of life from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality-that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals. In them the universe begins to know itself.” - George Wald, (Noble laureate and professor of biology at Harvard University) wrote this in an article entitled “Life and Mind in the Universe” which appeared in the peer-reviewed journal the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology, symposium 11 (1984): 1-15. “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter-not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.” - Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931). “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” - George Greenstein (American astronomer) Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic, Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, (1988), pp. 26-27 “What turns a mere piece of matter from being mere matter into an animated being? What gives certain special physical patterns in the universe the mysterious privilege of feeling sensations and having experiences?” - D.R. Hofstadter “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” - Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface. “When I went to the moon I was a pragmatic test pilot. But when I saw the planet Earth floating in the vastness of space the presence of divinity became almost palpable and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident.” - Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 Astronaut) “A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” - John Wheeler (American physicist) Wheeler, John A. “Foreword,” in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. (Oxford, U. K.: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. vii. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” - Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the radiation afterglow (Quoted in Walter Bradley, “The ‘Just-so’ Universe: The Fine-Tuning of Constants and Conditions in the Cosmos,” in William Dembski and James Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence. 168) “We go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. We give little thought to the machinery that generates the sunlight that makes life possible, to the gravity that glues us to an Earth that would otherwise send us spinning off into space, or to the atoms of which we are made and on whose stability we fundamentally depend. Except for children (who don’t know enough not to ask the important questions), few of us spend much time wondering why nature is the way it is; where the cosmos came from, or whether it was always here; if time will one day flow backward and effects precede causes; or whether there are ultimate limits to what humans can know.” - Carl Sagan (From an introduction to “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking) “As long as you are occupied with the mathematical sciences and the technique of logic, you belong to those who walk around the palace in search of the gate… When you complete your study of the natural sciences and get a grasp of the metaphysics, you enter into the inner courtyard and are in the same house as [G-d the King].” - Moses Maimonides “This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow (God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.) “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Proof of the Birth of Jesus The greatest argument against Christianity would be the fact that Jesus never lived. If the birth of Jesus did not occur, then of course, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus did not occur. And if there is no resurrection, then death has not been conquered. If death has not been conquered, then sin has not been conquered and we are all doomed. Without the birth of Jesus, Christianity is just another religion based upon legends and myths. Many argue that the only proof of Jesus' birth is the Bible. And they go on to argue that the Bible is just a book of myths and legends. There is historical, archaeological, and the study of logical reasoning that disproves that the Bible just a book of myths of legends. If the Bible is true, then Jesus birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are true. Some will argue that you can't trust the Bible because it was written by those who believed in Jesus. If you use this argument regarding biographies and history books (this is what the Four Gospels are like), you see how foolish it is. Many biographies are written by people who loved the person they are writing about, but we do not question their validity. There are those who write about history who have their prejudices but we do not deny the facts that are in their books. Read on the Validity of the Bible. However, in this section on the Birth of Christ, we will cite sources that are outside of the Bible to prove that Jesus Christ was known to be a real person and not just a fable. This is only a small amount of information-go to the Books Section to obtain much more information on the Historical Evidence of the birth of Jesus. Also, we have a great amount of material discussing the Resurrection of Jesus. If He was resurrected, he obviously was born. The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119). If they document his death, then he had to have been born. It needs to be understood that some of the writings were hostile to Christianity, but still documented the historical fact of Jesus. JOSEPHUS-Jewish Historian Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus: "About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 ) Most scholars agree that the statements in italics were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, which means he had to have been born. TACITUS-Gentile Historian Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Annals 15 -44 ” Mischievous Superstition”. Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers. A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible. He wrote his history of Rome covering the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, that's 14-96 AD. He used earlier works by historians cross checking them with each other. He sought to verify his facts, something unusual in the writing of the time. He clearly has bias as he hated Domitian and wasn't a great fan of Tiberius, but this would have no bearing on mentions of Christ. Some say that Tactitus also wrote about Hercules so his works are not valid. Read our response to this accusation. Suetonius-Gentile Historian Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). Phlegon-Gentile Historian "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21 "And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” Origen Against Celsus The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). References There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre. So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born? Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth: These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989.

Elaine C Do u ever think on ur own ...... EVER. Do u have any arguments of ur own that lead to a god that u cant copy and paste.

The Earth is 4.5662 +/- 0.0001 billion years old.

Believing the earth is young puts you at the intellectual level of a concussed sheep.