(January 22, 2015 at 12:37 am)dyresand Wrote:The statement 'I believe only what I can see' is in itself contradictory since belief is not physical. Actually, many things exist that can't be observed. Some very real scientific entities, such as magnetism, gravity, and electricity cannot be seen. Critical abstracts, such as numbers, sets, propositions, and properties, cannot be seen either...yet they exist. Justice, goodness, and other morals are real, but they are also undetectable by the senses. The concepts of truth and love are invisible realities. And by the way, just because we're limited by a body doesn't mean God is. The point is 'seeing is believing' is the very limiting, but if that's what you want to go with, that's perfectly fine.(January 21, 2015 at 2:04 am)snowtracks Wrote: That's a problem, isn't it? Title reads 'dna found', and article means 'dna building blocks'. The presence of early Earth’s building-block materials is not enough to explain the origin of life. These materials must be able to combine in a stepwise manner to form more-complex chemical entities that in turn could evolve into the first life-forms.
Nasa is desperately trying to increase their funding by distorting an article title and promoting a creaky and exhausted 19'th century materialism.
Still a argument for god did it is irrational. If god did it we would obviously know there is a god or gods present we would be able to contact god we would be even able to see god in a since. There would be more evidence for a heaven existing instead of blatant likes like heaven is for real.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.