I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist

From I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek

It turns out that atheists have bigger gaps in knowledge because they have far less evidence for their beliefs than Christians have for theirs. In other words, the empirical, forensic, and philosophical evidence strongly supports conclusions consistent with Christianity and inconsistent with atheism. Here are a few examples of that evidence:

1.. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Either someone created something out of nothing (the Christian view), or no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic view). Which view is more reasonable? The Christian view. Which view requires more faith? The atheistic view.

2. The simplest life form contains the information-equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias. Christians believe only an intelligent being can create a life form containing the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias. Atheists believe nonintelligent natural forces can do it. Christians have evidence to support their conclu- sion. Since atheists don’t have any such evidence, their belief requires a lot more faith.

3. Hundreds of years beforehand, ancient writings foretold the coming of a man who would actually be God. This man-God, it was foretold, would be born in a particular city from a particular bloodline, suffer in a particular way, die at a particular time, and rise from the dead to atone for the sins of the world. Immediately after the predicted time, multiple eyewitnesses proclaimed and later recorded that those predicted events had actually occurred. Those eyewitnesses endured persecution and death when they could have saved themselves by denying the events. Thousands of people in Jerusalem were then con- verted after seeing or hearing of these events, and this belief swept quickly across the ancient world. Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology cor- roborates them. Having seen evidence from creation that God exists (point 1 above), Christians believe these multiple lines of evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt that God had a hand in these events. Atheists must have a lot more faith to explain away the predictions, the eyewitness testimony, the willingness of the eyewitnesses to suffer and die, the origin of the Christian church, and the corroborating testimony of the other writers, archeological finds, and other evidence that we’ll investigate later.

The main point for now is that you see what we mean when we say that every worldview— including atheism—requires some degree of faith.

Even skeptics have faith. They have faith that skepticism is true. Likewise, agnostics have faith that agnosticism is true. There are no neu- tral positions when it comes to beliefs. As Phillip Johnson so aptly put it, “One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs.” In other words, atheists, who are naturally skeptical of Christianity, turn out to be true believers in atheism. If they are honest with the evidence, they need a lot more faith to maintain their atheistic beliefs than Christians need to maintain theirs.

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist

  1. You have forgotten to mention Satan.
    The Bible tells us that “the devil believes and trembles” (James 2:19). So even the devil is not an atheist. This still does not guarantee that many Christians who believe in God will not end up attending the Permanent Pitchfork Party.
    The question is how does this knowledge affect mine and your spiritual condition. Mere assent to the truth is useless, unless it changes the life in the image of God.

    Like

    • The truth sets us free,,, and it must change us. I believe we are born with a quest for authenticity. Recent studies indicate we could well be hard-wired for belief in a creator.

      And so it seems. Ignoring that natural inclination is what leads to rejection of God. That’s what is learned. That’s the indoctrination.

      Like

      • I tend to believe that when God told Eve and the Serpent : “I will put enmity between your seed and her seed…” He was talking about making a way for humanity to somehow overcome sin and have victory over Satan, should they so desire, in spite of political, religious or cultural environment that mankind would find itself in. Missionaries often tell the story that many cultures that have not heard of Christ, or have not had contact with Judaism, still contain “markers” within their culture which enables them to respond to Christianity.

        For example, Chinese Christians have told me that although they did not have cultural ties with Ancient Judaism, certain ceremonies that the Chinese Emperors performed, were based on a knowledge of the same sacrificial system that we know as Levitical system of sacrifices. And many Chinese characters are based on Biblical stories such as that of Noah and the Great Flood. I can give you the link as soon as I find it.

        Thus the atheist claim that our religious beliefs are the product of culture, political and religious environment is not true. There are certain markers that enable people to respond to Christ, despite coming from a culture that had never had contact with Christianity. It is often the implications of what it means to respond to Christ that often makes people turn away. In other words it is pet vices and sins that people love that holds them back from accepting the evidence for God, Christ, etc.

        Like

      • “And so it seems. Ignoring that natural inclination is what leads to rejection of God. That’s what is learned. That’s the indoctrination.”
        “And so it seems. Ignoring that natural inclination is what leads to rejection of God. That’s what is learned. That’s the indoctrination.”

        Rolf Harris and hordes of others (including the priests who ‘believe’ god made them do it….or made them TO do it) presumably hold the same ‘Belief’.
        …no doubt reinforced with Jesus’ instruction to ‘love children’.

        Why is their ‘Belief’ any less valid than yours?

        Like

      • ???? –> “Why is your belief valid at all?”
        What does that mean?
        What ‘belief’?.
        Any ‘beliefs’ I might hold (rightly or wrongly) are based on some sort of demonstrable fact. (Like falling apples, for eg.) NOT unevidenced assumptions like ‘god’.
        …and are subject to change or abandonment should further apparently valid information suggest hat course.

        ????Why is my post (of 9:38) still “awaiting moderation”?

        Like

      • ”I have no belief in God” is not the same as ”I believe there is no God,” which can also be voiced as ”There is no God.”

        To have a belief in God does not necessarily imply any particular faith, even Satan’s, whatever that might be.

        We want to do the right thing, and often justify our sins by believing they aren’t really sinful, that if actually illegal then they should be made lawful. We believe we are in the right, and criminals have been known to boast about their crimes.

        It’s here we need the Light of God to show us where we are going wrong. Not to tnreaten us with ‘pitchfork parties’, not to instil fear and panic, for ‘fear of the Lord’ implies awe and wonder more than threat.

        If we want to talk about original sin, let’s not ignore the fact of original blessing. We are God’s children, and he wants us to grow well.

        Like

      • “The truth sets us free,,,”
        ……….Never ‘helped the police with their enquiries’, have you?? 😆

        Like

      • Strewth!

        First you write:
        “To have a belief in God does not necessarily imply any particular faith, even Satan’s, whatever that might be.”

        This opens the way for making truth, and the faith in truth, ethics and morality relative. In other words, what is right for you is not right for me.

        But then you write:
        “We want to do the right thing, and often justify our sins by believing they aren’t really sinful, that if actually illegal then they should be made lawful. We believe we are in the right, and criminals have been known to boast about their crimes.

        It’s here we need the Light of God to show us where we are going wrong.”

        But if belief in God does not imply any particular faith, how are you going to know what is right and what is wrong? If as your first statement implies, there are no absolute moral and ethical standards then who is to say who is right and wrong?

        Who is in the right? The Criminal who boasts of his crime, or the crime victim who is suffering from the crime and wants justice?

        And how do we know that what we believe isn’t sinful, is right? Especially when sin is defined by the Bible as ‘the transgression of the law’ (1 John 3:4). Here you have a biblical term (sin) defined by a biblical standard (the law). Which law are you talking about when you say that belief in God does not necessarily imply any particular faith?

        Also you mention that if something is illegal, it should be made lawful. But by whose law?

        In fact the only part of your statement that rings true is:
        “We often justify sin by believing they aren’t really sinful, that if actually illegal then they should be made lawful”.
        That is at the crux of the battle between faith and atheism. Atheism chooses to deny the existence of God, because belief in God means absolute standards of morality and man’s accountability to God for living according to these standards.

        Like

      • “This opens the way for making truth, and the faith in truth, ethics and morality relative. In other words, what is right for you is not right for me.”

        No, Davinci. You have read that meaning into the words. They imply nothing about truth, ethics, morality or ‘right’. They are only about a belief in a God of any sort.

        But yes, God need not have the same lessons for you as for me. Yours might be far in advance of mine.

        Like

      • Strewth,
        If I read meanings into words, why bother believing in any God at all? Why not adopt atheism and situational ethics where everything is subject to the whims and fancy of whatever is popular at the time?

        Without belief in God and without the correct belief in God, we end up in the “Sez who?” situation. Namely:
        – Honour your father and your mother – Sez who? Just euthanase them or dump them in some senior citizen home.
        – Thou shalt not kill – Sez who? – Alister Crowley in the Satanic Bible condemns turning the other cheek in favour of “doing unto others before they do it unto you”.
        – Thou shalt not commit adultery – Sez who? By your logic we can tell Jesus to shove the sermon on the mount where the sun doesn’t shine, because He defined adultery as even looking at a woman with lust. And didn’t you make the comment that the same sermon on the mount was valuable?
        – Thou shalt not steal – Sez who?
        – Thou shalt not lie – Sez who?
        – Thou shalt not covet – Sez who?

        Like

  2. Abiogenesis, “first cell”, even more impossible
    BY DR DON BATTEN

    The idea of a first cell making itself is having a rocky time, so much so that many evolutionists want to evict the origin of life from being part of evolution, although the concept is widely called ‘chemical evolution’. Darwin could perhaps be excused for thinking that life was simple and could arise by chance, but that is no longer a viable idea.

    In 2006 the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville published that the minimum genome consists of 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes.

    Now researchers at Stanford University have studied the common fresh-water bacterium Caulobacter crescentus, disrupting the functioning of the DNA by randomly inserting one extra piece of synthetic DNA per cell, to see which parts are essential for life. The mutated cells were multiplied and then the locations of the synthetic DNA pieces in living cells were identified as being the non-essential parts of the bacterial DNA. The method is very efficient.

    “This work addresses a fundamental question in biology: What is essential for life?” said Dr Beat Christen. “We came up with a method to identify all the parts of the genome required for life.”

    Just 12% of the DNA was essential under the protected lab conditions. That might not seem like much, but it amounts to 492,941 base pairs (‘letters’) and includes 480 protein-coding genes, plus other essential control sequences and parts for which the function is not yet known.

    So, this study suggests that well over 500 essential genes and control sequences are necessary for free-living life. But even one average gene is beyond the reach of random combinations of nucleotides (‘letters’). If it were possible, the materialistic origin of life from chemicals has became even ‘more impossible’.

    CREATION.COM

    Like

    • Oh come ON, Monica! —> “Darwin could perhaps be excused for thinking that life was simple and could arise by chance, …”

      I can show you MILLIONS of pregnant 13-year-old schoolgirls that would shoot down that proposition. They ‘Believe/d’ that even a small kiss or a dunny-seat could produce life by chance.

      But, of course, their assertions are as ratty as are the assertions of pontificators about the origins of ‘life’ who offer no definition for WHAT IT IS!Particularly if said pontificators are among the same dills who were thoroughly discredited (and had to confess the falsity of their claims) in the
      ‘Intelligent Design’ shitfight.

      Have you, for example, checked out the academic ‘credentials’ of some of the experts you cite?

      After that you might want to have a closer look at the strawmen they nimbly knit to confirm their ‘expertise’ to other knitwits.

      Not only do they consistently FAIL to define ‘Life’ in any acceptable way, they then prattle on about ‘genomes’, which (a) changes the subject because (a) the term relates only to individual species ~ none of which has yet had their dna tracked back to the beginning, and (b) they restrict revelations to ‘cells’, when ~ theoretically ~ the descendants of what we loosely call ‘life’ originally MUST have begun on a much more discrete and ancient level; certainly atomic and perhaps even below that. A mutated photon perhaps??

      In any case, both ‘science’ and ‘the WOG assert that ‘life’ was originally ‘non-living’ matter.
      …in one case ‘the dust of the earth’, in the other ‘stardust’.

      I’m no cosmologist, so can make no comment about ‘stardust, but I can positively assert that ‘clay’ does NOT contain the atomic/nuclear matter/chemistry necessary to generate or sustain what we call (but don’t define!) life.

      Like

      • ps….meant to point out:- ” In any case, both ‘science’ and ‘the WOG assert that ‘life’ was originally ‘non-living’ matter.”… but we can PROVE beyond any doubt that ‘life’ on earth (or anything else) didn’t appear as (or when) the WOG describes.
        …….whence, then, the ‘process of elimination’??

        Like

      • Well let’s face it, you hairy-tailed critter (!),
        How could anyone be impressed by some clown ~ pretending to be an expert ~ who uses terms like “Abiogenesis, “first cell”, even more impossible” ??

        That’s like telling someone they’re ‘more unique’.

        Moreover, a ‘first cell’ has nothing to do with ‘abiogenesis’; living cells came a long way down the track; they’re sophisticated little buggers. It’d be like comparing the caveman who chiseled the first wheel out of rock to Enzo Ferrari.

        If you really want to consider the origins of ‘abiogenesis’ do a bit of research on viruses and their evolution.
        ….and keep in mind that none of this creationist crowd ever mention such things. For good reason.

        Like

      • Not my words….but worth reading

        Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

        Early concepts of abiogenesis were very simplistic. Rotting meat was soon covered in maggots, and so it was assumed that the meat turned into maggots. Mice were usually seen in places where hay was stored, so it was assumed that hay turned into mice. This type of abiogenesis is known as “spontaneous generation.” This was actually the popular scientific explanation for the reproduction of living things as recently as a few hundred years ago. It wasn’t until the mid-1800s that men like Pasteur proved experimentally that living things can only come from other living things. That is, science eventually proved conclusively that the only supportable origin for any living cell is another living cell.

        Modern ideas of abiogenesis can be very complex, and some are more outrageously unlikely than others. Guesses are widely varied, from deep-sea lava vents to meteoric impact sites and even radioactive beaches. In general, all modern theories of abiogenesis imagine some scenario in which natural conditions create, combine, and arrange molecules in such a way that they begin to self-replicate. These theories vary widely as to the nature of these conditions, the complexity of the molecules, and so forth. All share at least one common factor: they are implausible to the point of impossibility, based on established science.

        One problem with modern abiogenesis is the extraordinary complexity of living organisms. Experiments have proven that very simple amino acids can be formed in laboratory conditions. However, these separate acids are nowhere near sufficient to create a living cell. The conditions which create these acids would not only kill any such cell as soon as it was formed, but are also unlikely to have ever actually existed at any time in earth’s history. Any evolutionary theory that seems to suggest how ultra-simple life could have developed from a single newly formed cell has no answer for how that cell could have been formed in the first place. There is no “prototype first cell.” Science has never even come close to producing a self-sustaining living cell that could have been produced by, or survived in, the conditions needed to form its components.

        It has been said that “death is philosophy’s only problem.” This may or may not be true, but dealing with death presents a major challenge to any philosophical view. In much the same way, abiogenesis is the scientific naturalist’s biggest problem. There are naturalistic guesses about how life could have begun without any Creator or Designer. And yet, these purely natural explanations are thoroughly refuted by science itself. It is ironic that so many people proclaim scientific naturalism to be “proven,” “established,” or “demonstrated” so clearly. And yet, naturalism is necessarily linked to abiogenesis, which is scientifically impossible.

        The overwhelming evidence that life cannot come from non-life is a powerful indication that naturalism is not a realistic worldview. Life either had a natural origin (abiogenesis) or a supernatural origin (intelligent design). The scientific impossibility of abiogenesis is an argument for, at least, a supernatural originator. The only way to create even the most basic building blocks of life is in non-natural, highly designed, and tightly controlled conditions. That, by itself, makes it reasonable to presume that life cannot begin without intelligent intervention.

        Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/abiogenesis-definition-theory.html#ixzz36IqaMlB6

        Like

      • From Bryan post :-
        This type of abiogenesis is known as “spontaneous generation.” This was actually the “””Popular scientific”” explanation for the reproduction of living things as recently as a few hundred years ago .
        The person who penned this has no understanding what SCIENCE is.
        Those type of explanations where penned by those not doing experiments ,research, tests in fact anything to do with “SCIENCE ”
        They are fairy tale crap and those of today who believe that is science are morons.
        You had better lift you game Bryan for post such dribble :- Popular scientific ha ha ha what a joke

        Like

      • hehehehehe:- “Early concepts of abiogenesis were very simplistic. Rotting meat was soon covered in maggots, and so it was assumed that the meat turned into maggots. Mice were usually seen in places where hay was stored, so it was assumed that hay turned into mice. This type of abiogenesis is known as “spontaneous generation.”
        ….as described in Genesis, d’you mean?

        Without an acceptable definition for ‘Life’ there can never be a definitive exposition of how it came about.
        However!

        Time and again premises upon which such arguments (both AGAINST ‘abiogenesis’ and FOR ‘intelligent design’) are factually false and/or manipulated to suggest a required outcome. One example is the insistent reference to “cells”. Any schoolkid knows (and there are umpteen pages on Google to demonstrate it) that the building blocks for what we call ‘life’ are not ‘cells’ * but the most basic of molecular atomic bonds.

        The most basic of them is ‘organic matter’, without which ‘life’ is not possible.
        Organic matter expresses itself itself in many different ways, but the basis for ALL organic matter ~ and therefore ALL life as we know it ~ is the hydrogen/carbon link = hydrocarbons. Hydrogen and Carbon atoms link easily, naturally, and in more than a few configurations. Similar accretions are abundant in the natural world. (That humans have not ~ yet! ~ been able to replicate the process is irrelevant For one thing they’ve only been considering the issue for about three seconds! Who knows what they’ll be able to do in a couple of billion years?)

        But here’s the crunch:- carbon does NOT exist in ‘human clay’. (ie in dirt ~ particularly a newly-created, Adam-building, earth).
        It’s ‘Stardust’, created in the nuclear furnaces of stars…and spewed forth over vast distances.

        Unfortunately for the god-brigades (according to Genesis) life on earth was ‘intelligently created’ five or six verses before, as a casual afterthought, “He also made the stars”.

        That alone shoots down the ‘God of the Gaps’ contention :- “The only way to create even the most basic building blocks of life is in non-natural, highly designed, and tightly controlled conditions. That, by itself, makes it reasonable to presume that life cannot begin without intelligent intervention.” (An argument as silly as claiming only god can make water run downhill.)

        The question becomes:- If you can’t believe Genesis, what CAN you believe?

        How about the facts?
        One of which is that most breathable oxygen on earth (which god left out of his ‘intelligent design’) ~ initially yet more ‘stardust’, along with nitrogen,etc. ~ has been produced by plants over nearly four BILLION years ~ which process also depleted the available stardust (carbon) which brought on a series of lengthy ice-ages. That provable fact alone destroys the whole (much later) ‘Garden of Eden’ fantasy ~ and with it the very idea of serpents and sin ~ (but might explain why Adam and his Squeeze felt the need for clothes.)
        Your quote provides any number of large targets, but I’ll leave it for now.

        ….Except for the reminder that Genesis itself ~ the ONLY ‘authority’ the non-naturalists can claim ~shoots god in the foot.—->

        Genesis 2:7
        Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

        Is it really possible for y’all to overlook the fact that no other life-form (including all the fowls and fishes and grasses, etc, etc. created BEFORE Adam) was thus inflated, and so don’t ‘live’?

        As Ardrey says: “And, as enlightened though we may be, while we pursue the unattainable we make impossible the realisable.”
        Good advice for any ‘seeker of wisdom and truth’.

        Like

      • You sure are a big fan of starry-eyed hippy metaphysics.
        Oil is now understood to be biogenic in origin, not abiogenic. A hypothesis that oil was abiogenic in origin was popular in the Soviet Union until the 1980s. The abiogenic origin hypothesis proposed that oil formation results from chemical reactions taking place within the earth, and that oil is thus continually replenished and not a fossil fuel

        Like

      • ?????… “You sure are a big fan of starry-eyed hippy metaphysics.
        Oil is now understood to be biogenic in origin”

        I’ve got no idea what you’re on about here.
        As far as I know there was never any question about the biogenic origin of oil.
        (and coal for that matter)
        What’s that got to do with the natural evolution of the first (so-called) ‘Life’ appearing on the planet?.

        But as I keep saying, the issue of ‘first life’ is purely rhetorical until an acceptable definition for the term is agreed to. A starting point might be that all ‘life’ as we know it uses the same four letters in it’s dna code.

        A….and I do think that considering the unique character of a virus coud be a fruitful exercise in defining ‘life’.

        Like

      • NOW you sound like you’ve been ‘helping the police with their enquiries’!! 😆
        —-> “I’ve got no idea what you’re on about here. ~ Clearly!!!!”

        ……..and, in keeping with the protocols, you’re also refusing to answer questions! Never admit nuthin!
        …… or is it simply a matter of:- sgt schultz i know nothing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo

        Like

      • “Projection!!!!”
        Are you sure you don’t mean ‘OBjection!’ (which only requires a single exclamation mark.) ??

        Sorry! I realise that’s yet another question, but ‘That’s ….er, ‘Life’ as they say.

        Like

      • ” One problem with modern abiogenesis is the extraordinary complexity of living organisms”

        That’s assuming that the first life was anything like the complexity of modern living organisms.

        It’s a bit like arguing that Thor must have inspired the Wright brothers because if you consider the complexity of a boeing dreamliner there is no way the technology existed to create something like that in 1903. Hence powered flight can only have been inspired by Thor.

        Like

    • This was actually the “”popular scientific””” explanation for the reproduction of living things as recently as a few hundred years ago. It wasn’t until the mid-1800s

      How can you post such utter crap ??
      There was no such thing as popular scientific at that time .
      Popular bull crap “yes”
      And anyone who claims in these times that is science is insulting scientists .
      However you plainly suffer from a infliction in that if it is written you fall for it hock,line .sinker all the way up to the pole.
      A dose of “cynicism” is what you require.

      Like

    • ps. as pointed out elsewhere, have a look at the evolution of viruses (like the Ebola one currently causing grief) .
      We know ‘science’ didn’t ‘create’ them, and may safely assume god didn’t ‘create’ them either (since they neither ‘creep’ nor ‘crawl’ upon the earth.

      So… are they ‘living’, non-living, or some sort of bridge between the two?

      Google clearly suggests that ~ like every other aspect of evolution ~ environment is critical. (ID makes no such stipulation.) m —>
      “Viruses are not cells. They do not have a cell membrane or other components of living cells. Living host cells are required for their reproduction. Outside of the host, they act as nonliving chemicals.”

      Like

      • Abiogenesis is a hypothesis which is evidenceless. It’s fueled by faith and speculation and there is no evidence of life being able to arise/form by itself. Lab experiments only confirm that intelligence is needed for something even only a remotely bit complex to form further reinforcing the scientific law of Biogenesis (life from life).

        Like

      • A hem!! How can you people ignore the FACTS.
        What about YOU defining ‘life’ before you make such baseless assertions??

        What IS proven is that ‘life’ is carbon-based, and that it cannot exist except as organic matter. And also that organic matter existed on this planet sometime before ‘life’ arose.
        …..and also a ve-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-y long time before any ‘intelligence’ existed.

        Have a look at a bare-rooted rose in the winter. Not a sign of ‘life’; to all intents and purposes ‘lifeless’: it neither photosynthesises, metabolises, consumes water nor demonstrates any sign of growth/replication (two major indicators of ‘life’).

        Stick it in a bucket of cowshit and wait for the spring and voila!
        The only thing that’s changed is it’s environment.
        Now how do you suppose THAT happened?

        Like

      • hm! “That proves nothing…”…nothing… 😉
        Still not answering questions, huh?

        What it does prove is that environmental factors are the critical element.
        Provide the environment and ~ given enough ‘time’ ~ whatever CAN happen WILL happen.
        Not even god can make a rose bloom in the dead of winter. It’s truly ‘lifeless’.
        And, ‘In The Beginning’ there was NO environment that would sustain ‘life’;god couldn’t’ve dunnit.

        When the environment became suitable life burst out all over; god couldn’t’ve stopped it. It may well have begun with a simple hydrogen atom hooking into a carbom atom ~ happens all the time, by pure chance….. and hydro-carbons were born: THE basic building -block of ‘life’.
        (and to repeat! ~ carbon is NOT found in ‘The dust of the Earth’. Not even god can generate life unless the ingredients are available.
        Given the abundance of those atomic particles odds are that such a union was a common occurrence’, but nothing happened until the environment was ‘just so’.
        And while in line with PROVEN evolutionary principles (natural selection, etc.)
        it should be remembered that such an ‘accident in the night’ needed happen but once.
        …throw in a little NON-LIVING DNA to build protein from inert matter, stir for a few billion years, and you’re well on your way

        The Great Flood makes the point. (and no, Noah didn’t have roses or wombats aboard. Nor dinosaurs, either ~ which had gone extinct because of an adverse change in THEIR environment.

        Incidentally:- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/synthetic-genes-proteins/

        Like

    • Abiogenesis is a hypothesis which is evidenceless. It’s fueled by faith and speculation and there is no evidence of life being able to arise/form by itself. Lab experiments only confirm that intelligence is needed for something even only a remotely bit complex to form further reinforcing the scientific law of Biogenesis (life from life).

      Like

      • Nonsense! (“Abiogenesis is a hypothesis which is evidenceless”….there is no evidence of life being able to arise/form by itself. etc.) *
        For someone who makes assertive statements, Rick, you ~ like so many other defenders of the faith ~ studiously avoid defining what you’re talking about.

        Why don’t YOU define the ‘life’ you’re prattling on about?
        And while you’re at it, how about letting us all in on what you mean by “complex”, as in —> “a remotely bit complex to form”

        From where I stand the only thing ‘complex’ about ‘life’ as we can observe it is the absolutely chaotic state it can maintain and still ‘operate’. (I’d use the word ‘live’ but none of you clever people will say what you mean by that, so I hesitate.)
        There is not the SLIGHTEST scrap of evidence (other than gossip,ignorance and superstition) that any such thing as a ‘god’ exists. But if it did it’d have flunked out of every class, relevant to the existence we CAN observe, at even the Primary School level. As an engineer it wouldn’t even qualify to design tree-stumps. Any wonder ‘Life offers no guarantees’, as they say; even a chinese scammer couldn’t develop a less warrantable product!

        They say ‘god must love sinners because he made so many of them’. Apparently that applies to nitwits as well.

        *FYI:- (at a primary-school level!):-
        http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/first_life.html
        http://lifeofplant.blogspot.com/2011/12/anaerobes-and-heterotrophs.html

        ps…and DO, please, give us your take on the creation of the Ebola Virus(and where on the ark it was stashed. 🙂 )

        Like

      • It’s not “posturing” …but YOU’RE still not answering questions. Tell me what you say ‘life’ is, and I’ll present proofs.

        Meanwhile, the facts are these:-
        1…What we call ‘life’ exists.
        2….We can clearly be demonstrated is that ‘living bodies’ are made up ENTIRELY of ‘lifeless’ matter ~ the most important of which does not occur naturally on earth. (and ~ according to your ONLY authority ~ didn’t exist anywhere in the universe until lo-o-o-o-ng after life on earth was ‘created’.
        3…..Given the passage of enough time. anything that CAN happen WILL happen.

        ….and if you’d ever experienced my cooking you’d have no doubt that by chucking enough ingredients into a pot and bombarding it with energy (heat) all things are possible.
        No matter how intricate an omelette, it’s still just eggs with other stuff chucked
        in.

        Perhaps I missed my calling. Perhaps I should’ve been god!
        If nothing else, it would’ve driven all you lot to atheism! 🙂

        Like

    • The more I look at this the more I can’t get over the arrogance! eg—>
      “researchers at Stanford University have studied the common fresh-water bacterium Caulobacter crescentus, disrupting the functioning of the DNA by randomly inserting one extra piece of synthetic DNA per cell, to see which parts are essential for life.”

      Q….. What conclusions could be drawn about “which parts are essential for life.” of “researchers at Stanford University” if I observed the disruption of the “functioning of their DNA….plus other essential control sequences and parts” after inserting a small bullet in their brains’?

      Would that determine what, about their lives, was “more impossible”?? 🙂

      The bottom line is the absolute PROOF that ONLY physical matter can sustain life as we know (but won’t define!) it.
      ‘Inserting’ the breath of god would probably kill it from suffocation ~ lack of oxygen.

      But note that even the god of Genesis couldn’t (allegedly) produce a man with a simple wave of his wand; or ‘Word’.

      We ARE the Sons of the Earth.
      (except the sheilas, of course 😉 ….perhaps they’re the daughters of Mother Earth.)

      Earth to earth; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. That’s ALL He wrote!

      Like

  3. No time have I ever claimed to now what is outside this universe.
    I have speculated a few bizarre concepts on this blog .
    And I could imagine many many more and everyone of them would be complete bullcrap .
    At the same time every person within every religion would state that beliefs of others religions are bullcrap.
    You just don,t have the guts to say it aloud .
    I am just pointing out the absurdity of you all claim to know the “REAL TRUTH ”
    Aaah the usual thing “”SHOT the one who see,s the bullcrap

    As for the header :-I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist
    What cop out from people lacking the guys to step outside their fear on non existence .
    Nothing as pathetic as those consoling each other to gain a feeling of importance .

    Like

  4. Only fanatics ~ and fairly rabid ones at that ~ assert that ‘truth’ MUST be what they “believe” it to be, sans sense, evidence, facts or objective historical observations.

    Moreover, what we are ‘born with’ is ONLY discernible in organisms which haven’t been subverted by the world in which they grow.
    There are no unhappy bastards (because their parents weren’t married) among babies.

    Next time you come across a day-old baby that’s asking Platonic-type philosophical questions do please let me know.
    ……I’ll hop straight onto my camel and follow The Star which is defying all observable cosmological rules and relativities to where it’s at.

    In my meagre experience all babies are “born with” is an instinct to find a tit
    They don’t even care if it belongs to their mother, some other person or some other species; they just want to suck.

    The next two observable things they’re ‘born with’ are the urge to poop and the urge to see how many feet they can fit into their mouths.
    ….all of which, statistically, predisposes them to become godbotherers,
    I……er, ‘Believe’.

    Like

  5. 1….False. On the contrary:- to the extent that science even addresses the issue, “science overwhelmingly confirms” that matter CANNOT be ‘created’ from nothing (Newton/Planck/Einstein et al) and it’s corollary:- That any form of matter CANNOT be ‘uncreated’ ~ ie annihilated.

    2…..You ALSO prattle on about “life” without specifying what it is you’re talking about.
    2…(a)….. “Simplest” is a relative term, so neither can you make claims about “The simplest life form” without stipulating how it compares to ‘the most complex life form’..
    2…(b) With what authority do you cite the “1,000 encyclopedias.” ?…and wouldn’t that be dependent upon the size of the encyclopedias?
    2….(c)Christians do NOT have any ‘evidence’ (beyond gossip and high hopes) to support their (vastly variable!) conclusion.
    2… (d) …..Since, whether you can grasp the reality or not, atheists have NO ‘belief’ in unnatural issues of course they have no ‘evidence’ to support such belief……with or without ‘faith’. (You seem to be a bit confused about mixing and matching those two terms; do try to get them straight in your head..
    3…..THOUSANDS of years before that, ancient stone art, totems, etc.etc. depicted gods made of stone, wood, sharks, talismans etc. etc. , and a plethora of cloud-dwellers who served the same functions.
    3….(a).. The alleged ‘foretellings’ either foretold nothing or ~ read from a particular dogma ~ got it wrong. The alleged ‘eyewitnesses’ couldn’t even get their stories straight.
    3…..(b) They couldn’t even get the contemporary NAMES right. Perhaps not-surprisingly, since so many were attributed even I get confused.
    eg…. Did anyone other than the alleged NON-eyewitness to the angel’s visitation ever explain why this ‘son-of-god’ wasn’t ever called by the name his alleged father gave him? (ie Emanuel) Or did his publicity machine decide to go more upmarket-boutiquey?
    3….(c) Apart from less than a handful of not-too-bright ‘disciples’ (THREE, in fact!) there is NO OTHER ‘eyewitness’ evidence of any credibility beyond rumour and gossip.
    3….(d).. And there are certainly ar NO “multiple lines of evidence”; not even a single scribble, in fact.
    3….(e).. There are no shortage of fruit-cakes who show willing to die for a cause or for none; but neither is there any evidence that any of the alleged ‘eyewitness’ died “willingly”. In fact the records show that the opposite was true. (eg Peter’s ‘denial’, thrice before the cock crowed; Paul being hunted down whilst trying to avoid the authorities, etc. etc. Even ‘Jesus’/Emanuel/whoever didn’t die “willingly”; he went because his Old Man insisted.

    And finally we fall back on the strawman assertions like “There are no neu- tral positions when it comes to beliefs. As Phillip Johnson so aptly put it, “One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs.” .
    Atheists are NOT ‘skeptics’; they are by definition NON-believers.
    Neither do they see any reason to be “honest with the evidence”, since there is NO evidence about which to be ‘honest’. That’s why christianity depends on ‘faith’ ~ not ‘evidence’.

    ….but one can be amused that the spinners of fabrications should call for ‘honesty’ ~ unless we’re referring to the honesty of their gullibility.

    Same old story, I guess:- Them that can, do; them that can’t, teach.

    Like

  6. Atheists must have a lot more faith to explain away the predictions,
    (vague, not valid, actually referring to other things, or able to be easily “fulfilled” if you are familiar with them by e.g. riding into town on a donkey)

    the eyewitness testimony, (non-existent,
    not written in the first person, nor even by those whose names have been attributed to them. Simply claiming in a book of fantastic stories that 500 people saw something is not eyewitness testimony.)

    the willingness of the eyewitnesses to suffer and die,
    ( you mean like all the Muslim suicide bombers? You think THAT makes them right?)

    the origin of the Christian church,
    ( can be shown to be just a natural synthesis of beliefs of the type that was common in that era)

    and the corroborating testimony of the other writers,
    (who were also neither contemporaneous nor eyewitnesses, and who at best simply commented that Christians had existed. SO what?)

    archeological finds,
    ( which prove nothing of the core beliefs of Christianity, and certainly nothing in the least “supernatural” )

    and other evidence that we’ll investigate later.
    ( all of which will be just as unreliable, unconvincing and lacking in logic as all the other supporting “evidence”)

    Like

  7. Not proof, but scientific conjecture. Don’t tell me science is only about the observable, when an article like this contains the words ‘scientists imagine.’

    But I believe God is at the root of whatever science reveals. I accept creation, but not as a magic wand waving. He has created physical laws, and by them He works.

    Here it is:
    “MOLECULAR SEEDS
    The key chemical precursors of life are abundant throughout the universe in interstellar dust and molecular clouds like those found in the Chamaeleon I constellation Scientists imagine the embryonic Earth forming from such clouds in the early days of our solar system, roughly 4.5 billion years ago. In the primordial welter of planetary formation, the fundamental chemistry of life begins with formaldehyde, water, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia. During a period spanning millions of years, as the nascent Earth coalesces and solidifies from the dust, these molecules are brought together and concentrated at the planet’s surface. Comets and meteorites, which regularly shower the Earth prior to the formation of an atmosphere, scatter even more molecular seeds around the globe.

    GEOLOGICAL GERMINATION
    As the basic molecules of life move from space to a planetary environment, they begin to interact and undergo chemical reactions that produce larger and more complicated molecules. These larger molecules will ultimately become the building blocks of the earliest life-forms. The initial chemical reactions are highly unstable and require the aid of minerals to keep the newly formed organic building blocks from spontaneously degrading. Steven Benner, a biochemist at the University of Florida, theorizes that minerals containing borate may have acted as a catalyst in “stabilizing and guiding” these vital chemical processes. Borate minerals are now commonly found in deserts such as Death Valley, California. Benner believes they were also abundant on the infant Earth.”

    Like

    • And your problem with that is? —> “These larger molecules will ultimately become the building blocks of the earliest life-forms. The initial chemical reactions are highly unstable and require the aid of minerals to keep the newly formed organic building blocks from spontaneously degrading.”
      Our (and ONLY our; who knows what Fungadandeongs on the far side of the galaxy are constructed of?) concept of ‘life’ is based upon and built of non-‘living’ matter, which we pass on, all-unknowing, to our offspring. ….and we can prove absolutely that we cannot live without that being the case.

      But we CAN live without the ‘breath’ of god ~ obviously so, because Adam was the ONLY non-living thing that got a dose of that ..
      Everything else remains ‘unliving’.
      (except this black mongrel under my desk which is driving me nuts! She’s chewing up my slippers ~ while my feet are in them! God couldn’t’ve breathed life into her though; she’d’ve stuck her tongue down his throat…alll two foot of it!)

      Intelligent design??
      Yeah! Right!

      Like

    • “Not proof, but scientific conjecture. Don’t tell me science is only about the observable, when an article like this contains the words ‘scientists imagine.”

      Scientists begin to study a poorly-understood phenomenon by applying their imagination to observations in order to come up with some likely explanatory scenarios. When one of those looks particularly promising it will be proposed as a hypothesis for further testing of any predictions which might follow from it.

      When it has passed all these tests, when you can make predictions as to what OUGHT to happen or be observed and find that ALL of these actually do happen, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. If even one piece of evidence can be found which contradicts this theory, then the theory must be discarded or fine-tuned so that it does fit the observable facts and any predictions that can be made from it..

      A scientific theory is, for all intents and purposes, a fact. It is as near as you will get to a truth.

      The Big Bang Theory does not propose that the universe exploded into being out of nothing, simply that it is all clearly expanding from what must have intially been one place.

      However, scientists do now consider that there may not be such a thing as NOTHING, but rather a boiling mass of infinitesimal virtual particles which are constantly popping in and out of existence, and which in certain circumstances can be galvanized into an explosion of combined energy, which itself leads eventually to matter. It has been stated that matter is simply frozen energy.

      Yes, scientists use their imaginations, but only ever to find the best explanations for everything in the universe. In a very real sense, they are looking for truth. But they are happy to be proved wrong because that will only aid them in their search for the most truthful explanation.

      That’s why religion kills knowledge. It basically says, “Here are the answers from an ignorant age, thousands of years ago. Don’t doubt them, however silly they seem, or terrible things will happen to you. Don’t look for anything else. Do as you are told, or the god who loves you will see you tortured for eternity.”

      Like

      • The sad business of trying to disprove God

        You often meet them for the first time at secondary school. The typical teenage atheist is more likely a boy than a girl, stronger on science than the arts, and at the high-ish end of the academic spectrum. He tells you that he has studied the nature of matter, the universe etc, and can prove that God does not exist.

        Already, you are plunged into the thick of the problem, which is one of category. The teenage thinker treats the existence of God as a scientific matter, but it isn’t. Science can certainly disprove some claims that believers make about their God – or, to be more exact, it can prove that these claims are incompatible with science – but it can have nothing to say about something that lies outside its realm.

        Some atheists resemble, in essence, that clever young schoolboy. They believe they have brilliantly proved religion to be a load of hogwash. In their minds, it seems an advantage that their creed does not appeal as much to women or the poor and ignorant. Indeed, Friedrich Nietzsche saw more deeply how European society’s moral order would collapse with the destruction of faith – but welcomed it. Christianity was a “slave morality”, he said, celebrating weakness and preserving “too much of what should have perished”. People such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler took up such thoughts with deadly enthusiasm.

        But precisely because religion, though theologically grounded, is much deeper than an intellectual theory, it tends to regenerate when attacked. The author quotes one Soviet persecutor of Christianity: “Religion is like a nail, the harder you hit, the deeper it goes in.” Spencer believes that the New Atheism is an expression of anger at the curious phenomenon that all over the world, except among white Westerners, God is back.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/10934709/The-sad-business-of-trying-to-disprove-God.html

        Like

      • Not at all necessarily:- “They believe they have brilliantly proved religion to be a load of hogwash.”
        I suspect most of them arrive at the conviction that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, not a scrap of it, that there is no basis for ‘religion’ (and even less to support the bastardries committed in the name of it.)
        …..And that despite lavish claims made for a divinity over many millennia there has NEVER been a verifiable sighting of such a beastie. (That, of course being the root of attacks upon ” claims that believers make about their God”.)

        As stated elsewhere:- proof of non-appearance is proof of absence.

        As for the other dogma:- “The teenage thinker treats the existence of God as a scientific matter, but it isn’t.”,
        …. the obvious question is:- Sez who??

        What, otherwise, is the point of the Acts, and Paul’s declaration of the ‘Road to Damascus’ thing ~ along with every other ‘prophet’s assertions before and since?
        Even Jesus took the trouble to provide physical, observable (ie scientific) evidence of his claims. Never mind the minor miracles ~ virginal birth, restoring sight, taking a poke in the ribs from Thomas, turning water into wine, etc, ~ what say you was the purpose of the resurrection???

        ….and his Old Man was an absolute show-off too:- Parting seas, fiery bushes that stay intact, wandering stars going the wrong way, man-swallowing fishes, 40-day downpours (not to mention the rounding up of two of each species, etc. etc. etc. etc.)

        These are the kinds of physical ‘scientific proofs’ offered to substantiate the legitimacy of (judeao-christian) religion; and as such they MUST be subject to ‘scientific’ investigation as to feasibility.

        Needless to say NONE of them stand up to scrutiny ~ least of all the rounding up of two of every species of animals.

        …..ever tried to herd cats?? 😆

        Like

  8. ORDER DEFIES RANDOM ORIGIN
    By Dr. Robert Carter

    An aerospace engineer and now professor at Georgia Tech since 1986, Dr Dewey Hodges researched rotorcraft dynamics for the U.S. Army for 16 years where he uncovered ways of simplifying fundamental equations, and reached an inescapable conclusion that a master mathematician created the universe.

    “There is an underlying order to the universe, and I especially see that order reflected in the equations I write,” Dr Hodges says.

    Early on in his career, he and a colleague found some small mistakes in two foundational papers in the field of structural analysis. He recalls that the equations were much longer than they needed to be, and he believes it was no accident that “the final analysis is simpler, and that the underlying interpretation is simpler.”

    He cites another example of this order while working with a professor in graduate school. He published a paper about the equations of motion for helicopter blades.

    “It took pages and pages of equations,” he recalls, “but in 1990, I discovered a way to write better equations in just a few lines. In 2003, I discovered an even simpler way to write these equations.”

    Dr Hodges explains that the reason mathematics works is evidence of God’s existence – and on this topic he recommends James Nickel’s book Mathematics: Is God Silent?.

    “If this were a world of random phenomena, with random jiggling of molecules, with no plan or order behind it, why would you be able to predict anything with an equation?

    “The fact that you can [make accurate predictions] means there is a connection between our thoughts, which are not the random jiggling of molecules, and the material world.”

    But why would an all-powerful God create a universe based on simple mathematics?
    Dr Hodges says, “I don’t know that it is simple as much as it is orderly (which reflects creation by a God of Order). If I have an equation where I can understand every term, I am in a different realm of understanding.”

    In defence of God’s creative genius, he appeals to ‘Occam’s Razor’, a gen-eral rule that the simplest answer is often the best one. Furthermore, “We can predict with pinpoint accuracy the path of a projectile. We can send a man to the moon. If the underly-ing world were not real, if it were an illusion, we would not be able to do that because there would be no link between observation and reality.”

    Like

    • Continuing along those lines, “Another option is that the universe came into being on its own, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or, it has always existed, which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Or, it was created by an all-wise, intelligent Creator.”

      Dr Hodges adds that this four-point argument for God as Creator was pioneered by Walter Martin, author of Kingdom of the Cults.

      Dr Hodges grew up in church, but this ‘habit’ became a conviction after he saw a dramatic change in a former drug addict.

      “There was a kid who had grown up in the church but he had left and become a hippie and drug addict and was generally unkempt,” he recalls.

      But when they met six months later, “He was completely different. He was totally changed. He was happy. He was rational. He was clean-cut.” He explained to Dr Hodges that it was due to Jesus and that He was a real person who lives today.
      Later on, when he was alone in his room, Dr Hodges found himself saying, “Lord I want what he has.” Then during a church meeting he finally prayed to God for forgiveness for his past mistakes and ignorance, asking Jesus to come and take first priority in his life. “I was a new creation in Christ Jesus from that moment on,” he says joyfully.

      After obtaining his Masters in 1970, Dr Hodges was working toward his Ph.D and employed in the army laboratory at California’s prestigious Ames Research Centre. There he became a Biblical creationist after attending a church-run apologetics course that demonstrated the consistency between the Bible and the real world.

      As evidenced in his life’s work, Dr Hodges says “there is an obvious connection between mathematics and the real world and this is part of design. I feel like I am ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him’.”

      That last part was a quote from the famous scientist Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), a devout Christian and creationist who worked out the laws of planetary motion (1609) and who interspersed his scientific writings with praises to God.
      Another of Dr Hodges’ scientific heroes is the great Swiss mathematician and physicist, Leonhard Euler (1707–1783), who wrote more pages of mathematical physics than any person before or since, and continued his highly productive output even after he became totally blind in 1766. Included in his works is his “Defence of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers”.

      During the first lecture of every university class, Dr Hodges introduces himself and concludes with this compelling statement: “The most important thing in my life is that I am a servant of Jesus Christ. There are people on this campus and in this culture who will tell you that you cannot be a good scientist or engineer if you are a Christian. But I am here to tell you that they are wrong.”

      CHALLENGE , the good news paper (June 2014)

      Like

      • yadyadyada….. Another little example to the devious manipulations godbotherers appear unable to resist:-

        Of COURSE the “ option is that the universe came into being on its own violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
        The First Law of Thermodynamics stipulates clearly and unambiguously that matter CANNOT be created or destroyed. (as I’ve said here repeatedly).
        That stipulates that it not only DIDN’T ‘come into being on its own’, it stipulates that it WASN’T ‘created’ either ~ particularly from ‘nothing’.

        The Second law deals with entropy only, and plainly supports the FIrst Law, but in different terms:- “The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system NEVER DECREASES , because isolated systems always evolve toward THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM, a state with maximum entropy.” (No shortage of info on Google ~ look it up for yourself!….assumimg you really want to know.)

        The only debate lies in whether our (Universal) “System” is a closed system or not. If it’d accepted that ‘Universe’ means ‘everything there is’ even that debate is nullified.

        NOT an option (and particularly in terms of science) is the assertion that
        “Or, it was created by an all-wise, intelligent Creator.”
        It’s no more than yet another attempt at trying to attach a self-serving nonsense to the coat-tails of observable facts so’s to get a free ride through the doors of reality.
        Desperately!

        Like

      • Why is Dr Dewey Hodges’ opinion any less valid than yours dabbles?

        We are all entitled to our own opinions, and that’s all the above is, an opinion. In no way do I view these ‘opinions’ as authoritative! But nevertheless, I love to hear (or read) other views. Chill out old man!

        Like

      • Well, Dearie…I didn’t say my opinions were any more valid that Hodges’. Perhaps you’d better get your reading glasses (or SOMEthing!) checked.
        I merely made the point that his opinions were tainted by dogma, and therefore couldn’t be trusted because they contradicted demonstrable facts.

        And just in passing, I disagree with that other p[iece of dogma that “we’re ALL entitled to our own opinions” ~ if those opinions are broadcast or acted upon in some other way.
        What if Rolf Harris spent his time in the nick writing a manifesto about ‘The Correctness and Desirability of Child-Molestation’ and wanted it published when he got out?
        Fair comment?

        ….Unless, of course, he wanted to post it on Faithworks. The censor there would squash Harris’ opinion in a second!
        (Unless, perhaps, he used a nom-de-plume. 😉 )

        nb, How DO you get the italics working??

        Like

      • How do you get the ‘italics’ working?

        Like this dabbly-do-do:

        right angled bracket or right chevron. Then insert the word. Then finish with right angled bracket or right chevron. And that’s it, Bob’s yer aunty.

        You do the same thing for ‘bold’ too, only the bold is barely noticeable here; nothing like Bryan’s ‘bold’.

        In regards to Dr. Carter’s “opinions being tainted by dogma”, I actually agree with him that the God of the Bible is a God of order, and certainly not of confusion.

        Is my belief dogma? Nah! It’s common sense. 🙂

        Just look around you. Look at the planets and stars in the universe. They are all in orderly orbits. What are the odds?

        Like

      • Correction, should read:

        Left angled bracket or left chevron.
        Then insert the letter i
        Then close with a right angled bracket or right chevron.
        Then print the word you want to be italicised.
        Then finish the application with Left angled bracket or left chevron,
        Slash, and
        Right angled bracket or right chevron.

        Like

      • Now there’s an other-worldly connection even I couldn’t deny! –> “Is my belief dogma? Nah! It’s common sense.”
        Trixie, the black dogma under my desk, says exactly the same thing about eating catshit!

        God DOES move in mysterious ways!

        ps. Thanks for the instructions, but I’m not a fast-enough typist (waste enough time already trying to get around the censor!)

        Like

    • Really, Ratso! Random ramblings get you nowhere except to expose the underlying agenda of the recitees ~ and to expose their devious methodologies; mainly manipulative strawman building.

      The ‘Doctor Robert Carter you (indirectly) cite is a self-declared godbotherer with an axe to grind.
      A quick look at his ‘position’ has him making the point that (as he sees it) it didn’t take many random developments to bring about ‘life’ (which he, also, doesn’t define!), but only required Adam and Eve.

      ….thereby entirely ignoring the FACT that life, provably, originated BILLIONS of years before those two ~ or even their animal ancestors ~ ever arrived on the horizon. Sexual reproduction is a relatively recently past-time.
      For 70% of the time ‘life’ has existed on earth there was no ‘death’.
      Division ruled (and still does in multitudes of species of ‘life’).

      It’s rational (if unlikely) to assert that all of ‘life’ on earth stemmed from ONE single mutation/alteration to a glop of suitable chemicals. To this very day everything we call ‘life-forms’ is still constructed of chemicals AND NOTHING ELSE that’s discernible. Only the reactions vary, and that variation is usually governed by variation in environment.

      ….and who knows:- somewhere down the track all you compulsive forelock-tugging knee-benders might be touting the GodParticle as the real son of the One True God.
      You know, the one you all denied existed…..until they found it!
      …..and about which I’ve seen no mention from all the clever people who’d rather ‘Believe’ than ‘Know’.

      Like

    • .Oh…and Rodents don’t ‘strike’; they stick their noses in and nibble around the edges.
      (And in this case is a dead give-away!)

      Like

    • OH THE ARROGANCE!! —> “But why would an all-powerful God create a universe based on simple mathematics?”

      Typical arse-about argument. Mathematics are derived from OBSERVATIONS OF the universe; NOT the other way around.

      It’s as stupid as suggesting that we have ten digits on our hands because we adopted the decimal system in 1966.

      Like

    • …and incidentally:- re.‘Occam’s Razor’

      “This means that if there are several possible ways that something might have happened, the way that uses the fewest guesses is probably the right one. However, Occam’s razor only applies when the simple explanation and complex explanation both work equally well. If a more complex explanation does a better job than a simpler one, then you should use the complex one. – Google

      Like

  9. MOON ROCKS ARE SURPRISINGLY WET
    By Tas Walker

    Researchers have analysed moon rocks brought back by the Apollo 17 mission and discovered water at concentrations ranging between 615–1410 parts per million. That’s of the same order as in Earth’s upper mantle.

    The discovery of lunar water has surprised the evolutionary researchers, “because it contradicts the prevailing ideas about how the moon formed.” Namely, the idea that four billion years ago an object crashed into Earth, knocking off a portion which supposedly became the moon. But the collision should have vaporised any water in it.

    The Genesis explanation for the origin of the moon has no such problem!

    Reference: Moon rocks are surprisingly wet, New Scientist 210(2815):21, 4 June 2011

    Creation Com

    Like

    • (a)…” But the collision should have vaporised any water in it.”
      Why?

      (b) the ‘Chip-off-the-old-block’ proposition has long since been discredited.

      Like

    • “The Genesis explanation for the origin of the moon has no such problem! ”
      ….neither did lewis carroll. 😉

      Like

  10. 1. Strawman the big bang theory doesn’t necessarily pre-suppose that there was nothing before the big bang. If you read Stenger on the topic you might conclude that “nothing” doesn’t actually exist.

    2. ” Christians have evidence to support their conclusion” false claim, unless you can actually demonstrate life being created.

    3. Another false claim there are no contemporary eye-witness accounts. We have accounts written many decades after the alleged man-god. All that tells is us that the writers of the later stories were aware of the earlier ones.

    Like

  11. “We are all entitled to our own opinions”
    No, we’re NOT!
    We can HAVE any silly opinion we like but we are not ENTITLED to pronounce as fact any more than can be justified.

    If you can justify your opinion that there is a god, a particular god selected from among thousands, then I’ll accept that you are entitled to it.

    Until then you are ENTITLED to no such thing. We are not entitled to pronounce someone guilty or innocent just on a feeling, without evidence. If we are talking about a being who is supposedly responsible for everyone and everything, then the stakes are even higher and the evidence required absolutely extraordinary, not something just left to private intuitions and interpretations of feelings and ancient writings from superstitious, more-than-biased believers.

    Like

    • “If you can justify your opinion that there is a god, a particular god selected from among thousands, then I’ll accept that you are entitled to it.”

      Why does this sound so off, Bryan, especially on a blog that discusses faith?

      For most of my life I was told to shut-up, that my opinion was worthless. I truly had no voice, which left me believing that I was autistic. Then God intervenes in my life one day and tells me over and over again, through his prophetic messengers, that He’s given me a voice, and why do I not use it!

      All I can say Rol is that God led me to your comment as there is no way that I would bother to read this thread so long after being put on the blog—1st July.

      You may not think that my comments are of any value here, but that is not what God thinks.

      Prove to me that God does not exist, to justify your opinion. You can’t!

      Like

      • So according to a voice in your head the voices in your head are very important.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s