Barring my explanation at the start of this thread, where exactly is this missing evidence of mine, SW, or are you merely making an indignant assertion because we atheists get a little sleepy-eyed when you try to prove god with the Bible?

(December 12, 2013 at 3:03 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I'm defining creation, as Simon Moon commented on, as existence. I called it creation instead. The earth, sun, moon, stars, animals, plants, etc. Everything we "percieve" through our senses. I pruposed that existence (creation) points intuitively to an intelligent designer.

Here's the problem: intuition is a terrible method for determining reality, once we zoom out to a large enough scale. Remember, the intuition in your evolved monkey brain is equipped to handle reality as defined by how far you can walk and the things around you on the ground; it's got no sense for space, or even planets, really. Those things are too big for it, and so the intuitive leaps you make on those topics are bound to be at least a little bit faulty.

For example, intuitively speaking, the earth is flat: you can intuit this because it's flat beneath your feet, you never see it curve, no matter how far you walk, it's basically flat, right? And so, for quite a while, a flat earth was intuitively true. So was a sun that orbited the earth: it moves, we don't, yeah? What changed those intuitions? Evidence, data, observations that went beyond merely what we can intuit to be true.

Which brings me to the other major issue here: evidence. You haven't really given any. In fact, without knowing what facts caused you to intuit design in the first place, there's not really much that can be done at all. Like I asked earlier, how do you justify the idea that we're in a created world? What would a non-designed universe look like, in order for you to have a point of comparison, and how do you know that?

Quote: I believe it to be far more likely things are created rather than they just happened. Simon Moon propsed that "existance is evidence of existance", that there cannot be any further deductions, conclusions, or intuitions to be drawn from that observation.

Your first sentence here is called the argument from personal incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy: "I can't imagine any other way this could have happened, and therefore it must be god." Unless you know everything, what you think is more likely doesn't mean much, unless you support it with evidence and data.

(December 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 3:32 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Understood. That is why I gave creation as evidence.

And what evidence do you have that the universe was created? If you say the bible, you're just using circular reasoning.

Using "creation" as a noun not a verb.

(December 12, 2013 at 10:48 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: And what evidence do you have that the universe was created? If you say the bible, you're just using circular reasoning.

Using "creation" as a noun not a verb.

I understand, but to call the universe "creation" is to imply that it was created.

(December 12, 2013 at 10:48 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: And what evidence do you have that the universe was created? If you say the bible, you're just using circular reasoning.

Using "creation" as a noun not a verb.

A linguistic relic is not good evidence in this instance.

(December 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm)I am God Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 3:03 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I believe it to be far more likely things are created rather than they just happened.

More than likely only because it is in harmony with your religious view. Chemical reactions happen constantly and at random in nature. There is absolutely one happening as I type this. That's all life is... a chemical reaction. We are extremely close to proving that RNA can simply spring into being in the conditions of a pre-life Earth.

---

(December 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Do I have this right? Mutation is synonomous with chance.

I would say change not chance. Mutation equals change.

So mutation (change) occurs, then natural selection eliminates the harmful or unbeneficial change and the good change survives to enter into another state of mutation (change) and this cycle occurs for millions of years (time). So if I say change through natural selection and time is that an accurate definition? = YES

Those species that develop in a fashion that allows them to better survive will continue to survive. Their genetic information gets passed along. Those less capable of surviving often do not make it. Sometimes a species will simply branch in two different directions and then from there continue to evolve in two different directions. Much in the way we are related to apes. At one time we had a common ancestor. Some of us went one way... the others went another. Look at a squid and an octopus... certainly you can see they have similar characteristics.

When you get a chance please send me a link/reference to the spontaneous RNA article I'd like to read it. Follow up question: if pre-earth conditions are not observable nor measurable how can science correctly recreate them in order to prove RNA can spontaneously exist?

^ The reply to that is...you know, I'm a Chemical Engineer by profession, and...if for example we observe certain oxidation marks on a piece of equipment we start looking for presence of oxygen and water. Trying to prove how it exactly happened is a bit beyond the scope. In cases like this it's about finding the CULPRIT.

The reason itself may still be unknown, maybe there was a KMnO4 leak that got mixed with H2SO4 and gave a super reactive manganese heptoxide that gave those burn marks on the equipment. It's beyond the scope. If we can trace the water and the oxygen, we stopped the oxidation so we can go home bang our wives.

In long time lines like that we look for culprits, like hydrocarbons, phosphor, ammonia, and if those are present, it's only a matter of time before they reunite in an RNA molecule. The culprits are there proving that it is possible. In my opinion, how it exactly happened is beyond the scope. The only way to prove is to mix the culprits together, record the molecular interactions for a billion years and then fast play the video after to see what happened which we cannot do. No catalyst for life was so far found, no catalyst speeds up such formation...it takes amounts of time that our human life perspective cannot comprehend. You're used to dealing with years and when you think about centuries you already get dizzy so, no one can understand what a billion years means.

My belief is that life is inevitable when it comes to chemistry because molecules come together based on the most stable configuration, so for it to go into stability realms of the DNA molecule...the reaction time is very very long. It's a very complex reaction that requires for the medium to remain stable for billions of years. That's all it takes: For everything to remain the same for a very long time.

(December 12, 2013 at 11:12 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Follow up question: if pre-earth conditions are not observable nor measurable how can science correctly recreate them in order to prove RNA can spontaneously exist?

Because to prove RNA can spontaneously exist, all that need be done is to prove that RNA can spontaneously generate: no matter their knowledge of the initial conditions, if it's proven to have happened, then there's no more excuse to posit a god, merely because spontaneous generation seems impossible. It's not.

(December 12, 2013 at 11:12 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: When you get a chance please send me a link/reference to the spontaneous RNA article I'd like to read it. Follow up question: if pre-earth conditions are not observable nor measurable how can science correctly recreate them in order to prove RNA can spontaneously exist?

Likewise, when you get the chance, please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist. Face it. Science will never provide the glib, seamless explanation to all life's big questions that boldly assuming God for no reason can. Denying God leaves everything open to question. Assuming God allows you to get on with acting like you already know everything.

(December 12, 2013 at 8:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 8:54 pm)Ryantology Wrote: So is this. Oops.

So it that! Oops.

I know. I was waiting for your predictable response.

You made the claim that the thread's title was unsupported by evidence without supplying any of your own in support of that claim. The evidence supporting my previous claim is that, in your previous post, you made an claim but you did not supply any supportive evidence.

Oops.