First, let me say that I have been fascinated with the Creation vs Evolution discussion for many years. For that to make sense requires me to elaborate on myself for a second and I hope I don't bore anyone with this. I'm an engineer for my "day job" and growing up I was surrounded by engineers in my family. Engineers ask a lot of questions. I also grew up in a Christian family and so I listened and learned both sides (one at home, the other at public school) of the "story", so to speak, the story of faith in a Creator and the story of faith in Evolution. Yes, please note I called the opposite side "story of faith in Evolution" for a reason: general evolution cannot be quantifiably demonstrated in a lab and therefore, the conclusion of general evolution is built on inferences from things that can be observed. Hold on to that thought for a second as I will come back to it.
I like using personal experiences and application to any subject because it provides relevance and clarity to thoughts and conclusions. So, here's another personal story. At the young age of 27 I developed high blood pressure and my doctor couldn't figure out why even after a lot of poking and testing. About 4 years later in a simple blood test for an insurance policy did the answer arrive as to my problem: hyper-active thyroid commonly called Grave's Disease (after the doctor that quantified it). If you don't know what your thyroid is or does, trust me, that when it goes off track you'll learn about it VERY QUICKLY.
And you'll learn a lot of other things too about how delicate of a balance the human endocrine system really is. There is a set of hormones that comprise the thyroid system and is broken down in a series of stages of composition used by the body (T1 through T4) and a series of stimulating and counter hormones to regulate the production and up take of the hormones. I don't know the total count involved, I'm not a MD, but I know of at least 6 hormones I've been told of relating to thyroid operation.
Now, the real application to this thread. I've spent a lot of years asking questions to various doctors about the thyroid and why mine went crazy. I've had 4 doctors over the years and done a lot of my own research and +50% of all cases like mine just get the label "idiopathic". No that doesn't mean the patient is an idiot (some may think that about me though ), but that the root cause cannot be determined. Given all of the doctors and research on just one system of the body, the thyroid, and they can't come up with the answer to a common problem (in any year several hundred thousand people in the USA are diagnosed), what does that tell us about the human body and man's knowledge of how it works? And the thyroid is just one hormone system of the body with literally dozens more that do not operate in isolation but work together to make the human body operate. My thyroid whacked out and in the process messed up the regulation of several other hormone functions, that's why I had high blood pressure.
With that background then I'd like to ask a few questions that I ponder often regarding Evolution. I ask them because they help frame my conclusions and test what is reasonable or not.
1) How did the thyroid system evolve?
2) How did the reliance and interaction of the hormonal system evolve?
3) In light of the above, how did the human body evolve then from single cell what I call non-systems, to the enormously complex and inter-dependent system it is?
It is in light of these questions and my experience with the inability of the Medical community to find the root cause of a common disease, that I frame the phrase "story of faith in Evolution". If all of medicine can't explain why a single endocrine system breaks a majority of the time in discovered cases, why is it reasonable to believe they know conclusively how that same system got here via general evolution? And that is why to my thinking it is far more reasonable to conclude that the systems that comprise my body were designed by a Creator to be they way they are instead of chance and natural selection offered by the General Evolutionary Theory. Both require "faith" to reach their conclusion because we can put neither in a "lab" and are reached based on evidence and reasoning. What I ask you, the reader, is which is more reasonable?
1. I always like to ask a evolutionist about "DNA", that seems to be a troubling matter for them.
2. Since Darwin is called the father of evolution, why is it that he himself denounces his own beliefs by stating that if a cell is more complex than that in which he could see, than his own thoughts were invalid. Since then the cell has been proven to be a highly complex organism, which in turn abolishes Darwins own thoughts about evolution!
3. There are many quotes by Darwin that Darwinist ignore, because if they do not they may have to find another philosophy. Here is one that I thought was interesting:
Darwin wrote:"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)
I read what you posted and am unable to find the reasoning of your conclusion. You say that man doesn't understand all of the human body and i agree. (for some reason people think that doctors have all the answers, they don't)
You say there is no proof that there is evolution, which is not true. ex. 98% same DNA as monkeys; why do humans
you say it can't be tested in a lab, which you can and has been. ex. Scientists have seen the change in diseases when a medicine has been introduced- it evolves to be immune to that medicine. ex.ancient bones and skeletons of early humans, steadily becoming more like what we are today. ect.
Why there is no reasoning at all in your conclusion is not your fault, just human nature. Humans will always take a junk theory rather than having no theory at all. For some reason people believe that for a theory to be right it has to explain everything. The Evolution theory is always evolving to explain new things but, researchers never claim to know it all.
No one knows how life started, or how life evolved from single cell to multi cell, or how the human body is so perfect and precise. No one knows. Including you. But to satisfy your need to know how things work you picked up a junk theory.
This was made in a day before science, before philosophy, and it attempts at both.
since it was mans first try at science and philosophy it was not very good.
I don't see why if you don't understand how something works some invisible guy must have made it.
The same thing happens when someone sees a UFO. they dont know what it is ( hence the U-unidentified) so they automatically think its an alien from outerspace, instead of realizing that they just don't know.
for man: junk theory> no theory __its human nature
There is no proof of god
there is proof of evolution
thus evolution= more reasonable
(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.
(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.
We can explore five possible conclusions:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.
(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one.
To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.
• The essential distinction between pattern and design is language
• Fundamental Property of all Designs: Idea precedes Implementation
• Idea must be represented by language
• All language comes from a mind
Life is preceded by DNA, and a watch is preceded by a plan where a blueprint or at least an idea in somebody’s mind that preceded the building of the watch.
That is true of all things that are designed, an idea comes first.
The essential distinction betweens patterns and designs is language. Patterns don’t have languages, but designs do. So the fundamental property of all designs is that an idea precedes the implementation of the idea.
The idea exists in a symbolic form before it’s physically built. An idea, in order to exist, has to be represented by a language. Even to have an idea in your mind you have to talk to yourself and have images in your mind of what you want to do before you do it. So we know this:
• Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions.
• All languages come from a mind. No exceptions.
• There are no languages that do not come from a mind.
• So we know that DNA was designed.
• A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.
Can this be refuted? Yes, if any exceptions to this can be found. But a lot of people have tried to refute it, unsuccessfully. It’s an airtight inductive proof that life was designed by a mind. If anyone can find a flaw in the logic, it fails. Until that happens, it stands. It’s just like the laws of thermodynamics, or gravity, or conservation of matter and energy. If anyone can find an exception, the law fails to hold.
This leads to what we call The Atheist’s Riddle:
“Show me a language that does not come from a mind.”
It’s so simple and a child can understand, but so complex no atheist can solve.
you say DNA is a code
then you say all known codes are made by a mind
What about DNA??!?!
your proof is made possible by your own bias
If you had no bias you would have had to say- All known codes are made by a mind, except DNA (because you don't know)! but you can't say that because you already know what you think so your proof is biased thus not usable in argument
I do not know how cells can evolve to learn this coding, and language but, i have no proof for god. Your proof isn't proof at all.
if you can prove that nature can't create codes and languages then you might have an argument. but you say nature is created by a mind so any code you know about will have to be created by a mind because that mind created everything.
i am not able to see the relevance of minds and codes that are created by humans any way. My better answer is on my next post.
Do you know anything about DNA?
DNA is a code , a language which has design which goes beyond a simple pattern which you can find in chaos.
There is not design in chaos.
DNA was enough for Dr. Anthony Flew to recognize intelligent design.
He recognized that codes and langauge must come from a designer, this is not my bias it is your stumbling block. And if you were honest about the truth of DNA you would would admitt that your left with only one possibility for DNA.
What exactly do you not understand?you say DNA is a code
then you say all known codes are made by a mind
What about DNA??!?!
Lets make this super simple, see if you can answer each question without dodging them.
1. DNA is a language? T or F
2. A language is designed to communicate something, DNA is the building blocks of living beings? T or F
3. Something that has design demands a designer greater than the thing designed? T or F
Codes do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.
This leads to what we call The Atheist’s Riddle:
“Show me a language or a design or a code that does not come from a mind.”
It’s so simple and a child can understand, but so complex no atheist can solve.
The fool has said in his heart,
"There is no God."
i didn't dodge your question because as you were writing your second post i was writing my response to your first but i didn't see your second.
your question:“Show me a language or a design or a code that does not come from a mind.”
if everything living is created by a god then nothing can not come from a mind but, if you don't believe in god i would say DNA. theres my answer:DNA. not a very good riddle. All other codes and languages are created by a mind because all of the ones we know are our own. The relativity of other codes and languages, is irrelevant. i do not understand how Chinese and English are relevant at all to whether theres a creator.
let me just simplify all this code and language stuff to the root problem
How did life begin?
How did something come out of nothing?
these questions have been bugging the human mind for thousands of years.
The most simple and mysterious questions to cross the human mind.
You say a child could answer these questions, but what makes you think that their answer is correct?
No one has the answer to this problem including you or me.
Atheists can't give an answer because they don't know. The human mind might not be capable of knowing the answer.
maybe our minds are just too primitive to understand.
Like I've said, it is human nature to need to know the answer, our curiosity is innate in us (like the monkeys).
it is human nature to try and create a theory. The theory doesn't have to be true it just has to exist.
If you say the only way that any of this could be possible, is from a divine being ill say to you it would seem that way.
Natures balance and beauty is awe inspiring.
If your answer is god, i cannot disprove that. Because i can't nor any one else, is the reason religion is still alive and well to this day.This is something called an 'unfalsifiable argument' and it does not show the strength of the argument but, rather the weakness. you don't need facts or logic or reasoning or proof when your answer is god, all you have to say is
'god did it'.
although, i can't disprove your theory, I can ask you one question that I'm sure you have asked your self many times.
If something can't come out of nothing as you have said, then that something must have been created by someone. You say that someone is god. Well then answer me this:
Who created God?
You can't answer saying god is timeless and doesn't need a creator because that goes against your own logic of why we need a god in the first place-- something can't come out of nothing. I'm sure it has passed your mind but, if you only hold in your brain the conventional answer to that question then i am sure that your mind is very closed and there is no use asking you these questions. If, on the other hand you said to yourself "i don't know how god was created" then congratulations, that is the first step to becoming an atheist, using common sense.
the reason that atheism is the fastest growing belief in America is because people are starting to use logic and reasoning.
I guess this would make us all agnostics not athiests. Because none of us can know how life began.No one has the answer to this problem including you or me.
Atheists can't give an answer because they don't know. The human mind might not be capable of knowing the answer.
Logic tells us that anything with design (function with purpose) such a prosthetic arm that is designed by a engineer for an amputee can be a masterful piece of hardware to help the one with out an arm, yet the human arm which is 2 million times better had no designer behind it. In fact it was just a cosmic accident that happens over an over and over and over and over. Now thats some good logic.
You can see design in everything that God created around you, stop and look at it.
I think I am more of an Atheist with an open mind.
Call me what you will you know how i feel on the God theory.
I think the genus of our body is due to millions of years of evolution. with out our bodies being so precise we would all be long gone. I think we owe nature a lot of respect for making this discussion possible. Not an invisible man. Maybe all the plants and animals should be viewed as the divine things.
You say that we might just be a cosmic accident and i agree with you. It is hard to fathom the immense size of the universe. There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every beach on the whole earth.
Our sun is just a grain of sand. Its hard to imagine what our planet is then. How many planets there must be in the universe. Maybe on another planet far off aliens are having the same conversation. I think that human life is nothing special. We aren't the greatest thing in the universe. Maybe life was just an accident on a little planet in a little solar system in a little galaxy, in some far off region of space.
Imagine your self 2000 years ago when there was no cell phones, no science to explain things, no map of the world.
People didn't know how big the earth was, they didn't know that they were just a tiny part of the universe, they didn't know how old the earth is. To answer their questions on life and the earth they made a god that specifically made them in his own image. They just made him up to answer the un-answerable: where did we come from, why are we here, where do we go when we die. It made the world they lived in more important in their own eyes. Less lonely.
Its the human ego that made us the center of the universe. Its the human ego that made us so special.
throughout history you will see religion springing out of questions that at the time couldn't be answered.
Look at ancient Greek religion. The didn't know what made lighting and thunder, so they made up the fact that it was Zeus striking his anvil. Ancient Egyptian didn't know how the sun moved in the sky so they made up the fact that it was Amen Ra on his chariot pulling the sun every day across the sky. I make the claim that Christianity is no different.
Because we can't answer these age old questions is the reason Christianity is still around. If we ever do answer these questions Christianity will be toast. Maybe we will never answer those specific questions so Christianity might last till the end of the human species. There will always be questions though so there will probably always be religion.
: the belief that there is no God
- athe·ist /-th-st/ noun
- athe·is·tic /-th-is-tik/ adjective
Main Entry: ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-näs-tik, g-
Etymology: from Greek agnstos "unknown," from a- "not" and gnstos "known"
: a person who believes that whether God exists is not known and probably cannot be known
- agnostic adjective
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-näs-t-siz-m/ noun
Was purpose did the eye serve before it could see? Were are all the half man half wahtever you want to call them? If we can find bones for the supposed millions of years old animals, then why can we not find transitional human fossils.I think the genus of our body is due to millions of years of evolution. with out our bodies being so precise we would all be long gone. I think we owe nature a lot of respect for making this discussion possible. Not an invisible man. Maybe all the plants and animals should be viewed as the divine things.
Could you imagine a book with parts of it written 3-4 thousand years ago explaining scientific facts that were not discovered until within the last 1000 years, now that would be something. Or a book that reveals historical facts before they happened.Imagine your self 2000 years ago when there was no cell phones, no science to explain things, no map of the world.
Back to the arm: prosthetic vs. natural which one has more design?
um you said we need some evidence of evolution, and if you research it you will find a lot of it.
Yes, the bible is full of scientific accuracies. Like how the sky is a dome. the earth is at the center of the solar system.
disease is from the devils curse. The earth is 6000 years old. Wow how did they know it all?
tell me some of these prophecies.
JSM17 "Where are all the half man half whatever you call them?"
you don't seem to grasp the evolution theory, so your falling back on old arguments that have already been proven useless.
Evolution is a slow process over the millions of years to adapt to environment. The new species is better equipped than the old so it survives and the old dies off. Survival of the fittest. things in evolution aren't half one species half another totally different one. It works like a big tree. the trunk separates into branches, which then go to smaller ones which then go to twigs, and then to leafs. The leafs are the species. All species share at least one thing, they are all on the same tree.
You are related to the germs in the air you breathe, if you look close to the bottom of the trunk. You go up the trunk you will find the 'animal kingdom' branch and find that you are closer related to all the animals in the animal kindome. look up the Phylum, Class, Order, Family, branches, which continually get smaller, to the Genus twig an you will see that you are very, very closely related to every human that ever lived. We are all 52nd cousins some scientists say. We are all a big family! Isn't that picture in your head of the evolutionary tree beautiful! Its huge!!
We are just a leaf on a twig on a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a HUGE tree filled with thousands upon thousand of branches. Like real trees a few leafs fall off every day. Every day 25 species die off, regardless of humans. 25 leafs fall off the tree every day. 99.9 % of the species that ever lived on this planet since the beginning of life have died off. Humans are just a tiny leaf on a huge tree that doesn't take note of us. If we suddenly die off we will just join the pile of leaves at the bottom of the tree. And believe me all the other leaves will let out a sigh of relief.
The bible has been used for justification for hatred of Jews, gays, women, non-believers, and is just a weapon for leaders to abuse power for unjust reasons. Most of what it says or advocates is ok, and a lot of quotes are very insightful, that is why it is such a great book. If you look through out history though the bible is mostly just plagiarism of old written works, from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hindu, Buddhist, ect. religions that had, practically the same story, or shared some of these features. The birth from a virgin, crucified on a cross, died for 3 days, then was resurrected. the 'Noah's ark' tale is in the oldest known poem "the epic of Gilgamesh" dating to around 2000bc in Ancient Mesopotamia. But what Christianity boils down to is really just sun worship. Jesus isn't the son of god he is the sun of god. He's just a big metaphor for the sun. I'm getting off track =)
Like i was saying we are all just family and we shouldn't just hate people because an old fictional story told us to.
Would you really treat gays that way if they were your immediate family? Some say that they chose to be gay, let me ask you (people reading), when did you choose to be straight. Do you ever wake up saying " i think ill try out being gay today"? If gays chose to be gay they would have changed back to being straight after all of the persecution they get from you guys. Didn't Jesus himself say 'love thy enemy'? I'm not seeing a lot of love lately. i got off track again hehe
Oh yeah and we have found transitional human bones. Maybe not the one directly before Homo sapian because it is still being argued if Homo erectus was the direct link. Take a lesson from my old history teacher, you will learn a lot about human origins and ancient fossils of closely related species.
There really isn't a debate whether Creationism or Evolution is true, it is obvious that evolution is fact. Creationists support their claims with no facts or evidence just old arguments that will increasingly be revoked because of the overwhelming knowledge scientists will discover and the logic and reasoning of science will over power the stubborn believers. I hope, because if that doesn't happen, God help us all!
Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular, and molecular levels—that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. Before an eye was an eye what was its purpose so that it knew it needed to evolve into an eye?
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. When did evolution make its big leap into the scientific law and where is the documentation of it becoming a law, I missed that, does anyone else remember when that happened, looks like we all missed it except for you.
Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. Who can live long enough to prove and test evolution?
Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed the fittest. Hmmmmmm sound circular to me and also sound circular to many others including other evolutionist.
Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. Even though we do not need millions of years to see this more and more scientist are seeing the fall and falshood to this theory.
Let's stop making the assumption that science can prove everything, because it cannot and will not.
Are you a scientist and a philosopher, becasue they both serve two different purposes. Concider this: There is a general suspicion, if not presumption. that Christian Theism, the view that God is not only an infinite Spirit, but also one who at least on occasion intervenes in the natural order, is incompatible with Scientific Naturalism, the view that science as an enterprise can only be satisfied with naturalistic explanations for events and causes. To so think, however, is to confuse Scientific with Philosophical Naturalism, for the former limits naturalism to the scientific enterprise while the latter excludes Theism on principle. This argues that philosophy understood as a cognitive discipline is the proper bridge between theology and science. Such an understanding will insure the independence and integrity of each without allowing science to devolve into philosophical naturalism, on the one hand, and theology to degenerate into fideism, on the other. The argument has two stages.
First, it is contended that Christian Theism is not incompatible with Scientific Naturalism, but in reality entails it. This conclusion, it is argued, follows from both the Theisitic view of God's being and the inherent limitations of science. Theism rightly holds that God is a non-material spiritual being, but as such, however He interacts with matter, science will not be able to detect it, for science rightly does not permit the positing of entities or causes whose existence cannot be empirically tested in independent, predictable, and publicly observable ways. Thus, the nature of God as positied by Theism precludes proposing either Him or His action as a theoretical explanation for events in nature which science can validate. On the other hand, A material world created by a non-material God must have within it the potential for any and all things which God does within that world, so that any time God brings about an event there will be a complete naturalistic story to tell, also. Consequently, Naturalists are rightly unimpressed by the supposed evidence for theistic interference in nature based upon the improbability of a chance occurrence of a sequence of events required for some phenomenon. Second, it is maintained that nevertheless this does not mean that Theism cannot be argued for at all on the basis of science, but that such argumentation will take place a the philosophical, not the scientific level. The proper solution is not to try to incorporate theology into science or science into theology, but to recapture the fully cognitive nature of philosophy. Philosophy understood as a cognitive discipline can bridge the gap between Theism and Scientific Naturalism without distorting either. Indeed, it is argued, such a view of philosophy is the only way to both recognize and preserve their individual integrity and cognitive independence.
1) What reason is there to believe that spontaneous generation, that is the development of life from non-life, ever took place?
2)Ought we to become atheist?
3) Name one form of life which can begin and complete its life cycle without receiving anything directly or indirectly from some other living thing. In other words, name one form of life which is entirely dependent for its food, etc.. on the organic environment?
4) Does the term "Freethought" or "freethinker" imply that thought is in any measure free?
5) How dis matter become intelligent enough to deny that the universe is governed by intelligence?
6) How do you account for the order and intelligence which are manifested in such things as man, if the universe is a product of non-intelligent life?
7) Is there any rational account as to why matter in motion should have worked out theism in my brain and atheism in yours?
could you explain to me what you mean by 'transitional fossil' ?
On the eye argument, which is an old one that i have heard, eyes didn't start out as what they are today. 'eyes' first started out in unicellular life forms, around 540 million years ago, that had light responding proteins, called eye spots that would tell if it was light or dark where they were. These started to evolve to multicellular life that had patches of photo responsive cells that act like our eyes with the lids over them, only to sense if it was light or dark. And evolution keeps on going to all different types of eyes and better resolution ones, and then the ability to see color, and to know which direction the light comes from, to form shapes, to show distance, and so on.
My opinion is that evolution is fact, but your right it is still a theory, but for some reason people think that theories are claims that have no evidence to back them up or no facts to show their trueness. That is a hypothesis, theories have those things. Evolution isn't a hypothesis made from speculation, it is a theory backed by hard, cold, facts! A couple of posts back i called the god hypothesis a theory. It isn't.
If it was a theory it would be taught in schools, and regarded equivalent to Evolution. But it's not, so evolution is taught, creationism isn't. Evolution backed by facts=taught in schools. God hypothesis backed by nothing= not taught in schools.
When you say evolution is not testable you are quite wrong. In fact, scientists have seen evolution happening in bacteria that evolved to be immune to vaccinations. I guess fossils are meaningless to you that show the slow progressions of species.
that circular reasoning thing you bring up is very strange. Why would people deem something the fittest like some sort of award? Its just a fact that living things more fit to live in their environments will have a larger probability of surviving than the other less fit species. Do you see scientists going around announcing species 'Fittest'? no
I think your a little mixed up on what scientists do.
You say that scientists are increasingly doubting evolution. What scientists exactly are you talking about? I can't name one science teacher or one scientist that doesn't believe in evolution, unless their Christian scientists( Big Oxymoron)
In the scientific world it is thought of as almost fact because of its increasing ability to explain things in life. Of course it can't explain everything, yet, but does that mean that just because we cant explain some questions that there must be an invisible man in the sky? The only arguments that you have are questions, and like i've said, The only reason religion exists is because those questions aren't answered, and religion makes sure to try and get in the way of answering them, because they know that if they do answer them their precious religion will go away and never come back.
1.) Scientists have conducted experiments with same environmental conditions of the earth when they believe life started that show that amino acids, the building blocks of life, where created in the water over a short period of time.
2.) No. I don't mind if people are religious as long as they don't get me involved and don't get the schools teaching their holy book. Being religious is completely fine and for all i know helps people get along with their lives, it is just unfortunate that they get involved so much with other peoples lives, ex. gays, women, children.
3.)I think you mean "Independent" not "dependent"? If you mean Independent then i would tell you that the first forms of life and life all over the place today can be and have been completely independent from other life. Not all life needs food like we do. For example, the microbe Archaea, lives on deep ocean vents which release a chemical called sulfide. Through the process of chemosynthesis, instead of photosynthesis, it makes that inorganic material into food which it thrives on. so the answer would be Archaea. Like all the plants that produce food for the consumers to eat.
4.) Our thought is only free to the extent of our intelligence, or ignorance.
5.)How did matter ever conclude that a similar looking piece of matter, lives in the sky, but can not be detected, governs all other matter, and know what every piece of matter is doing, will do, and thinking, and the only way to be sure that this invisible matter exists is to die and thus not being able to tell the other matter that he never existed.
6.)Would you really call man that intelligent? Maybe you mean our conscious thought. what is to say that other animals don't have this? Maybe because their intelligence is a little smaller than ours they can't make tools that make their life easier, so they don't have the extra time to think like we do. Who knows.
7.)Your brain is different than mine. You were told these things, by a book, or a man, about god. I was never told anything to believe thus i have an unbiased opinion to what is more logical.
Miller’s experiment1.) Scientists have conducted experiments with same environmental conditions of the earth when they believe life started that show that amino acids, the building blocks of life, where created in the water over a short period of time.
Stanley Miller's aim was to demonstrate by means of an experiment that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come into existence "by chance" on the lifeless earth billions of years ago.
In his experiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have existed on the primordial earth (but which later proved unrealistic) composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapour. Since these gasses would not react with each other under natural conditions, he added energy to the mixture to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this energy could have come from lightning in the primordial atmosphere, he used an electric current for this purpose.
Miller heated this gas mixture at 1000C for a week and added the electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller analysed the chemicals which had formed at the bottom of the jar, and observed that three out of the 20 amino acids, which constitute the basic elements of proteins had been synthesised.
This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists, and was promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state of intoxicated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as "Miller creates life". However, what Miller had managed to synthesise was only a few "inanimate" molecules.
Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Stages following the developoment of amino acids were hurriedly hypothesised. Supposedly, amino acids had later united in the correct sequences by accident to form proteins. Some of these proteins which emerged by chance formed themselves into cell membrane-like structures which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. The cells then supposedly came together over time to form multicellular living organisms. However, Miller's experiment was nothing but make-believe and has since proven to be false in many aspects.
Miller’s Experiment was Nothing but Make-believe
Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas:
1. By using a mechanism called a "cold trap", Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.
Doubtless, this kind of a conscious mechanism of isolation did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products would have been destroyed by the energy source"114
And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.
2. The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia. After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic.115
So why did Miller insist on these gasses? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesise any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:
Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the Earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.116
The American scientists J.P. Ferris and C.T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapour, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.117
3. Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidised iron and uranium found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.118
There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that at that time, the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Latest Evolutionist Sources Dispute Miller's Experiment
Today, Miller's experiment is a subject totally disregarded even among the evolutionist scientists. In the 1998 February issue of the famous evolutionist science magazine Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":
Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."1
As seen, even Miller himself has accepted that, today, his experiment will not lead to any conclusion in terms of bringing an explanation to the origin of life. The fact that our evolutionist scientists embrace this experiment fervently only indicates the misery of evolution, and the desperation of its advocators.
In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth", the following is told on this topic:
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.2
In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor another evolutionist trial can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance and thus confirms that life is created.
This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.
4. At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.
Moreover, a large number of right-handed amino acids were formed at the end of the experiment.119 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidising the useful molecules obtained.
All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesise amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.
In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences". That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention. That is, the power that brings about life cannot be by unconscious chance but rather by conscious creation.
The reason evolutionists do not accept this evident reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organised the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on the subject:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.
Evolutionist, Athiest, and gnostics are all religious; in fact even more so with all the faith that you must have in that to which you cannot see and have no evidence or proof of!2.) No. I don't mind if people are religious as long as they don't get me involved and don't get the schools teaching their holy book. Being religious is completely fine and for all i know helps people get along with their lives, it is just unfortunate that they get involved so much with other peoples lives, ex. gays, women, children.
Because of the removal of GOD from the school system you have a moral decay in society. The country that you live in was built on Christian values taken from the bible. Because of the silencing of GOD in the schools you have more murder, teen abortions, confused sexuality, rape, and a highly uneducated generation of people who think more about themselves then they do for others.
You talk about staying out of the lives of people, how about what evolutionist and atheist have done for society and the school systems, what has been the result of that religion?
Theres no god, no Jesus, no moses, no ten commandments, no adam and eve, no hell, no heaven. Its simple. Religion has caused much pain and suffering in this world and its all because of false beliefs. Im starting highschool now and dont have time to do this any more. when you clear your mind of all the false fairy tales your told over and over everything becomes a little clearer. good luck buddy
quote "When one man suffers from a delusion he is called insane, when a group of people suffer from a delusion it is
quote "the bible is full of holes but it isnt holy"
last one is from my grandma =)