A Challenge To All Creationists

[Reggie Miller]

Evolution IS NOT abiogenesis. Please bone up on evolution a bit before making such self-serving claims. Thank you.

"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up."
source

​

And I take your lack of a relevant reply to my request; "MAKE A CONVINCING CASE FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION." as "I can't." Which is fair enough.

.​

Evolution without Creation IS abiogenesis. There is no need to attempt to lecture me.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Savagewind; Ah Im just pointing out the obvious - drawing attention to things that need to be noticed - you (all) of course make of it what you will - but it is all accurate nonetheless isnt it..??..

 

[savagewind]

Evolution without Creation IS abiogenesis. There is no need to attempt to lecture me.

I understand what you are saying. I might say the same thing but not with IS, with needs.

Evolution needs something else. God does not need anything.

Evolution without Creation needs abiogenesis. But, not the word abiogenesis. It needs a beginning.

I think that once those people who argue for no Creator get the beginning right (whatever it really is) only then can debates about it have any true worth imo.

 

[savagewind]

Hi Folks...

Savagewind; Ah Im just pointing out the obvious - drawing attention to things that need to be noticed - you (all) of course make of it what you will - but it is all accurate nonetheless isnt it..??..

I wish I could reaD IT TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS. Haha. I am going to leave that, because I think it applies. Don't you? Sometimes my fingers do that. It hurts my head to read your posts. It is a BUMPY ride.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The two elements - two aspects that are present throughout all existance everywhere without exception - are the forces we call ENERGY - and MIND... No matter what phenomena of creation, what aspect of existance we look at - they will ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION, contain and require BOTH of these aspects....

EVERYTHING in the material existance is made up of ENERGY - and without exception, it requires a MIND to realise that very existance

This is a point that I see creationists trying to make now. It must be the new "IT" argument for your group.

But it's beyond stupid...

Unless you believe that things do not exist until you become aware of them, then you're whole argument in nonsensical. There is absolutely no requirement of "mind" in order for things to exist. Have you ever known someone who died? Did anything at all in the world change after they croaked, other than your feelings? Of all the countless billions of people who died before you were born, what impact did their lives have on the Universe? Did things suddenly stop existing just because Martha got the consumption back in 1794 and coughed up one last blood bubble before drifting off into the long nap? When you die, will the Universe suddenly cease to be?

Do you not see how those questions are a bit ridiculous? The only aspect that "mind" plays in the nature of reality is how you perceive it. Existence went along just fine before you were able to perceive it and will continue to do so long after you are gone. The same is true of all humanity. We make no impact whatsoever on the nature of existence.

We are all fallen angels having to exist as mortals for stabbing our creator GOD in the back.

The entire universe is an illusion in an ocean of sin (darkness - dark matter).

That's a worldview. He asked for evidence.

We are here and we didn't do it, couldn't do it and don't know how to do it. Someone else must a done it. Else we're just a whole lot dummer than nothing.

Using that argument, the explanation could just as easily be the Magic Pink Unicorn, right? Maybe it was Nanabozho, the Great Rabbit? Maybe it happened when Borr slayed the primeval giant Ymir? Ranguini, the Sky Father? Was it Mbombo's space vomit, which created the world when he got a stomach ache?

Every effect has a cause. Automobiles, houses, computers, and wooden spoons do not occur without an intelligent maker. How much less logical to assume DNA, molecular machines, and other brilliant "products" are not the result of a superior Intellect and a Designer and Fabricator brilliant beyond measure.

False dichotomy.

You can't use example of things that are known creations and equate them to things that are known natural processes...

Using your same example, absolutely anything that functions can be argued to have an intelligent designer, can't it? If you're correct, where did the ditch in my backyard come from? It seems perfectly crafted for water flow, there are stones in the ditch that are aligned in just the right way to allow seasonal waters to pass over them smoothly. A few species of fern have popped up on the banks of my ditch, almost as if they were put there miraculously. I certainly didn't plant them. How could they have gotten there?? Ferns, mind you, require running water to reproduce. So even the local environment has been changed in a complex way by this wonder of intelligent design... How could something so intricate and complex have a natural explanation? It must be an invisible magic man in the clouds, right!?! An intelligent designer of some type, in his omniscience, delicately and intricately digging his finger into my backyard to make a place for future water to flow? That must be the only explanation!

But no...
During a heavy rain period a few years ago, a hill side washed out, redirecting water flow to a new part of the property. Ever since then, a seasonal creekbed has been forming before my very eyes. It's taken a while, but every year there's something new - something more refined about the ditch that has become a nice little place to sit in the Summer. What once was just silty water and mud slush has turned into a clear little stream. Bigger rocks have been pushed downstream, leaving smaller pebbles that the kids like to pick up and throw into deeper spots. What bigger rocks do remain, those same kids use to build dams. There's an elegance and illusion of design to the whole thing - but there was certainly no designer involved in it's creation, was there?

Second point - there is absolutely no way that life just spontaneously started all by its self and we have ALREADY PROVED THIS FALSE !!!

Please, show me the articles you've read which have "ALREADY PROVED THIS FALSE!!!"

Hmm - fossilisation - does NOT even take that long to occur at all - and can occur in just a matter of mere DECADES...I forget the details just now - will check if you insist - but I remember a modern story of a scientific explorer, who lost a hat of all things and only like thirty or so years later, went back to the same place and found his hat again, only now it was fully fossilised, thus proving beyond doubt that millions of years need not even apply at all...

Complete bologna.

There are a few chemical processes that will hasten a faux fossilization process, sure. But they don't result in the same type of fossil that you find buried under 65 millions years worth of geologic deposits. I'd challenge you to cite the evidence of your fossilized hat claim. I'd imagine it's all over creationist websites - it would be like them to try and pass off the misunderstanding of a scientific process as evidence of their mythology.

Creationism requires faith since we were not there when it happened.

Evolution, i.e. abiogenesis also requires a great deal of faith considering that no one would have been there to have seen it.

The question is, Who do you put your faith in? God's witnesses or scientists who tell you there is no God who created?

You weren't there when you were conceived either, but I'm going to guess that you trust in the logic that supports your faith in your own conception, right?

If you want to get right down to it, all knowledge requires a few assumptions and a bit of faith. The difference is knowing what you've based that faith on. There are standard, consistent, repeatable, testable, and knowable processes that lend credence to my faith in gravity, for example. I don't really doubt that one day the natural process of keeping things held together in the Solar System will just suddenly stop being...

God, on the other hand, is a cultural creation, shifting qualities, characteristics, and living space depending on the culture that created him. You, of course, believe that your god is the only god and that your god created everything. But you've no evidence for this at all, other than your strong feelings that it's true... I challenge you to show me how I'm wrong.

I could just as easily argue that life was created by Nanabozho, the Great Rabbit god. You can't prove to me that it didn't happen, can you? The only thing I would have going for me was my deep faith in Nanabozho, but that's no different than you claiming that Yahweh is the creator of everything that we see and that we should put our faith in him...

How are your claims about Yahweh and my claims about Nanabozho any different?

Also, there were no witnesses to god's creation, as you put it. If there were, where did they come from? Why did god have to create anything, if witnesses already existed? Not a single writer of Genesis existed when the world was supposedly created. Why aren't you as harsh on their telling of events as you seem to be on the telling of events as determined by geologists, paleontologists, biologists, archaeolgists, etc?

 

[Reggie Miller]

You weren't there when you were conceived either, but I'm going to guess that you trust in the logic that supports your faith in your own conception, right?

My faith isn't in logic, sir. My faith is in God and His Word.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Evolution without Creation IS abiogenesis. There is no need to attempt to lecture me.

Origin of life without gods is abiogenesis. Evolution isn't about the origin of life, only how it developed after it already existed. The vast majority of Christians and other theists have no problem with evolution, just abiogenesis.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Jonathan ;

Unless you believe that things do not exist until you become aware of them, then you're whole argument in nonsensical. There is absolutely no requirement of "mind" in order for things to exist.

First - let this sentance sink in, and if you disagree then tell me ..?... WHAT is a mind..?...I say simply it is the FACULTY, the ABILITY to percieve "reality" in all its forms - to perceive EXISTANCE in all its forms...Would you agree..??..

That quote above is exactly what I DO believe as I have experienced it directly - an existance with no material forms at all - a complete "blank slate" so to speak - just this force of "energy" that is Me. Mind CAUSES all existance and it is just so natural - so obvious to see we often just take it for granted and overlook it completely, but nevertheless IT IS TRUTH and easily demonstrated.. I tell you again - in ALL existance any where any time there are ONLY two elements interacting together...There is "energy" that will form the material world - and there is a mind that defines that material world as tangeable solid and experential TO that mind..

Now, we are not just speaking of MY mind - or YOUR mind - or any singular individual mind - but the ENTIRE MIND - EVERY mind in all existance in every animal form there is and ever was... The actual FACULTY to literally KNOW EXISTANCE, yes.. ?..

Take THAT FACULTY away from the Universe and yes indeed IT DOES CEASE TO EXIST - and it is obvious because now there is no mind Present - so tell me if you can - Who or what is left now to perceive or experience this so called universe and its existance...??....

The answer is clearly NOBODY - no PRESENCE there to KNOW that reality at all !!! and so most definately that reality REQUIRES the presence of a MIND to indeed be realised - as in literally MADE REAL.......Therefore it is indeed entirely true and logically accurate to say that nothing can even exist without the Mind to define and experience that existance - take the mind away and perception of reality - perception of existance - simply CEASES - take ALL mind from the universe and see logically the inescapable conclusion, the universe itself DOES cease to exist

Once this is realised fully - preferably experienced directly - then we can soon realise that actually then, this Primal Mind I explain, simply MUST have been present and aware even BEFORE the universe took its form - and again we see this clearly - all those ABSTRACT "natural laws" that are themselves wholly the domain of a mind, yet are vital TO the formation of the energetic process leading to "solid worlds" - everything is ABSTRACT at this base level, and that is ALWAYS the domain of Mind alone

Please, show me the articles you've read which have "ALREADY PROVED THIS FALSE!!!"

(ref autogenesis)

lol - no need at all - already showed you beyond logical doubt - and logical is ALWAYS our guide and best allie - follow it always...Simply stated inert chemicals do NOT come to life all by them self - not even once living perfect mix of said chemicals STILL never comes to life all by itself - ergo the base assumption for autogenesis is seen to be entirely false - repeatedly seen to be flawed - has NEVER seen to be accurate or any shred of evidence for it at all and so should just be discarded as entirely bogus...obvious - logic tells us already its a "none starter" - literally so -as no matter which way we approach this, we simply can NOT get this process to start "all by itself"......lol.. Completely bogus - an assumption and a guess - nothing more....NO evidence to directly support it - but LOTS of obvious evidence to deny its validity..Just my words here based on the undeniable logic of the world out there, shows us the truth and proves this "theory" as nonesense - as you say, its just "beyond stupid" as every day life shows us plainly it must be wrong..lol...

I mean - my granny died when I was ten - according to this nonesense her body should have decomposed and NEW dna sprang up out of the chemicals - by now the Walking Dead tv show should be a full on reality - but look out there - see any walking corpses..??...lol... That is what SHOULD happen isnt it..?...All those dead bodies - perfect mix of chemicals to bring life about - SHOULD bring life they say all by themselves - but - do they - ever..??....lol......We seriously need a "facepalm" emote for such theories - it is indeed beyond stupidity......

There are a few chemical processes that will hasten a faux fossilization process, sure. But they don't result in the same type of fossil that you find buried under 65 millions years worth of geologic deposits. I'd challenge you to cite the evidence of your fossilized hat claim.

HOW DO YOU KNOW...???

THINK about it !! After just 50 years the process has begun and is WELL UNDER WAY - perhaps something like 30% complete of we need figures - and yet you think the process will suddenly slow down so much that it will now take MILLIONS of years to complete..? GET REAL !!! On WHAT do you even base such an absurd claim..??...Tell you what - I will be generous to you here - lets say the hat was only 1% fossilised - and that took 50 years...And we will have to assume the rate of change is CONSTANT, for after all, we have no reason to even think differently do we..??.....So again - logic is our allie - 1% per 50 years = 100% achieved after 5000 years....Understand..??....THATS ONLY THOUSANDS mate - not "millions" at all...lol... It need not take that long at all despite what they say...

And other issues absolutely prove their method as wholly inaccurate..As said - different parts of the SAME FOSSIL give radically different ages !!!! As said -we begin to find SOFT TISSUE - blood vessels and the like - and again this theory says such a find should be impossible, and the fact we DO find the hard evidence absolutely shows the theory as wholly wrong...There is only two explanations for this - Either soft tissue CAN survive "millions of years" - but this would already proved to be wrong, because as said, just go look at your dead granny - 50 years even and nothing left...lol.....

Which leaves option 2 - they find soft tissue in fossils they THINK are "millions" of years old - but the presence of the tissue itself guarantees this just can not be so - even under optimal preservation conditions such soft tissue survives a few thousand years at best - absolutely proves the fossil simply can NOT be as old as they assumed

 

[savagewind]

Take THAT FACULTY away from the Universe and yes indeed IT DOES CEASE TO EXIST - and it is obvious because now there is no mind Present - so tell me if you can - Who or what is left now to perceive or experience this so called universe and its existance...??....

Does a tree have mind?

 

[jonathan180iq]

My faith isn't in logic, sir. My faith is in God and His Word.

Exactly...

 

[jonathan180iq]

That quote above is exactly what I DO believe as I have experienced it directly - an existance with no material forms at all - a complete "blank slate" so to speak - just this force of "energy" that is Me. Mind CAUSES all existance and it is just so natural - so obvious to see we often just take it for granted and overlook it completely, but nevertheless IT IS TRUTH and easily demonstrated.. I tell you again - in ALL existance any where any time there are ONLY two elements interacting together...There is "energy" that will form the material world - and there is a mind that defines that material world as tangeable solid and experential TO that mind..

You experienced it when you were stoned, I imagine? Is that what we are getting to?

Listen,
Do you believe that the Sun existed prior to the Earth? Do you believe that the other planets existed before their discovery? Do you believe that anything historical actually happened? Do you believe that time will continue to charge on long after you're dead? If you believe any of those things, then your argument is completely without merit, as it contradicts your basic premise.

Your position is ridiculous and you don't understand why.

If a tree falls in a wood...
You're essentially arguing that not only does it not make a sound but that there is, in fact, no tree. It's asinine.

You're saying that before you were born, or otherwise able to experience this planet or your parents, that there was no planet and there were no parents.

Before there was ever a "mind" capable of experiencing anything, there still had to be stuff, didn't there? How else would the mind come about? How would the mind have a thing to experience if not things predated it?

There are huge problems that your position can't answer - yet you regard it as the basis for all reality and existence?

Simply stated inert chemicals do NOT come to life all by them self - not even once living perfect mix of said chemicals STILL never comes to life all by itself - ergo the base assumption for autogenesis is seen to be entirely false - repeatedly seen to be flawed - has NEVER seen to be accurate or any shred of evidence for it at all and so should just be discarded as entirely bogus

So, there's no shred of evidence for it at all, and it should be entirely discarded as bogus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis
http://gizmodo.com/complex-organic-molecules-discovered-on-rosettas-comet-1786376941
http://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html
http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/

Take THAT FACULTY away from the Universe and yes indeed IT DOES CEASE TO EXIST - and it is obvious because now there is no mind Present - so tell me if you can - Who or what is left now to perceive or experience this so called universe and its existance...??....

No one - but it doesn't mean that things factually stop existing. Other than this logical hoola-hoop game that you're playing with yourself, you have no way of supporting your claim.

From your perspective the Universe may cease to be after you're dead. And from your perspective, things that you are ignorant of do not exist... However, your problem is that neither of those statements are true.

I mean - my granny died when I was ten - according to this nonesense her body should have decomposed and NEW dna sprang up out of the chemicals - by now the Walking Dead tv show should be a full on reality - but look out there - see any walking corpses..??...lol... That is what SHOULD happen isnt it..?...All those dead bodies - perfect mix of chemicals to bring life about - SHOULD bring life they say all by themselves - but - do they - ever..??....lol......We seriously need a "facepalm" emote for such theories - it is indeed beyond stupidity......

What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About ???

You are aware, I hope, that your grandmother's corpse has been feeding new life since you were 10 years old... That's what rotting bodies do - provide a constant source of nutrition and sanctuary for "new DNA" to emerge in several differing species of insects, namely flies.

It's quite humorous that you're facepalming this absurd scenario, which only you have suggested...
While the person who you considered to be your grandmother has passed away, that does not mean that all life inside that casket has ceased to be. Life processes continued to happen in her body from the moment she died until weeks later. This is how life works, man.

Also, please note that you did not stop existing just because your grandmother's mind became unaware of your existence.

HOW DO YOU KNOW...???

Because it's an understood chemical process that anyone who works in historical fields is aware of...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taphonomy
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord/fossilization/fossilization.htm
http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Taphonomy&Pres/taphonomy.htm
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm
https://ncse.com/book/export/html/2842

 

[rusra02]

I realize this was two days ago, but I realize no one has made a response to your comment.

The fallacy in this is that we know who made these tools, and devices. We can go check the records for these vehicles, to see who made what, and when it happened. We have video footage of such creations. Do we have video footage for the creation of life and organic structures? Do we have records of a Creator God doing such things, besides a thousands-of-years old collection of scriptures, written by ancient scribes? Yet, we have fossil records, etc. to support evolution and the idea of abiogenesis.

Also, I think you're forgetting that proteins, DNA, etc. at its current state right now is the result of millions and millions of years of evolutionary process. It wasn't just a snapping of fingers and POOF! Complex organic material!

It is true no human alive was present when God created life in all it's amazing variety. But I do not find that convincing proof that it did not happen. As Jehovah asked Job: "Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand." (Job 38:4) A tree may have a name carved on it. We do not know who did it but we have no doubt it did not happen naturally. How much less so should we assume our amazing universe appeared naturally.

 

[rusra02]

[QUOTE="jonathan180iq, post: 4966504, member: 5506]


False dichotomy.

You can't use example of things that are known creations and equate them to things that are known natural processes...

Using your same example, absolutely anything that functions can be argued to have an intelligent designer, can't it? If you're correct, where did the ditch in my backyard come from? It seems perfectly crafted for water flow, there are stones in the ditch that are aligned in just the right way to allow seasonal waters to pass over them smoothly. A few species of fern have popped up on the banks of my ditch, almost as if they were put there miraculously. I certainly didn't plant them. How could they have gotten there?? Ferns, mind you, require running water to reproduce. So even the local environment has been changed in a complex way by this wonder of intelligent design... How could something so intricate and complex have a natural explanation? It must be an invisible magic man in the clouds, right!?! An intelligent designer of some type, in his omniscience, delicately and intricately digging his finger into my backyard to make a place for future water to flow? That must be the only explanation!

But no...
During a heavy rain period a few years ago, a hill side washed out, redirecting water flow to a new part of the property. Ever since then, a seasonal creekbed has been forming before my very eyes. It's taken a while, but every year there's something new - something more refined about the ditch that has become a nice little place to sit in the Summer. What once was just silty water and mud slush has turned into a clear little stream. Bigger rocks have been pushed downstream, leaving smaller pebbles that the kids like to pick up and throw into deeper spots. What bigger rocks do remain, those same kids use to build dams. There's an elegance and illusion of design to the whole thing - but there was certainly no designer involved in it's creation, was there?

[/QUOTE]
Where did the rocks, fern seeds, and rain come from? or the kids that moved the pebbles?

 

[Animore]

It is true no human alive was present when God created life in all it's amazing variety. But I do not find that convincing proof that it did not happen. As Jehovah asked Job: "Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand." (Job 38:4) A tree may have a name carved on it. We do not know who did it but we have no doubt it did not happen naturally. How much less so should we assume our amazing universe appeared naturally.

I did not relay my statement as some sort of proof. I relayed it as a rebuttal.

A man that carved a name into a tree is much different than millions and millions and millions of years of genetic variation by way of gene mutation, gene drift, and genetic shuffling. Obviously, nature can do things on its own.

Let me give you an example. If you put a rat and a snake in a cage, who survives? The snake of course. It's called survival of the fittest, and it happens on a daily basis. The more fit to survive DOES survive. That's how nature works.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Where did the rocks, fern seeds, and rain come from? or the kids that moved the pebbles?

Natural processes

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hi Folks...

In ALL known phenomena anywhere in all existance - there are really only TWO essential elements ... that is the Cause of All Cretaion

So you're one of those who believe that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, then it actually makes no sound - that is, literally, that the energies that are expelled due to the tree falling do not vibrate the air in such a way as to produce what would have been audible had anyone been around? That's basically what you're saying.

Except that it doesn't really matter if humans (or any cognizant minds) are around to "witness" or "contemplate" matter or energy - those things will go right on doing their thing without us. Case in point - the matter outside of the edge of our observable universe at any given moment. Would you really make the case that as our sphere of "observable universe" expanded over the years, that all that matter that was uncovered/realized ONLY AT THAT MOMENT started interacting with the other bodies of the universe? 'Cause that's basically what you are saying - that it takes a mind to realize energy, or for energy/matter to exist. Which is straight poop.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Every effect has a cause. Automobiles, houses, computers, and wooden spoons do not occur without an intelligent maker. How much less logical to assume DNA, molecular machines, and other brilliant "products" are not the result of a superior Intellect and a Designer and Fabricator brilliant beyond measure.

There's a fundamental difference between any man-made, or creature-made object and things like DNA/RNA, complex organs and appendages, etc. To the point that, when you stumble upon a watch lying on the beach, it is different from the landscape - and obvious anomaly, something formulated by hands, wrought from disparate materials - not something "grown" or otherwise produced by the Earth and natural processes. However, on that same beach, when you stumble across a crab, it does not draw to mind the same idea of craftsmanship having been at work. Perhaps a completely different idea of "craftsmanship", but certainly not the one that sees hands at work, actually formulating something from raw materials.

And so, I submit that when you compare man-made objects and naturally occurring ones you are really comparing apples and oranges. And there is absolutely NO REASON to think that there had to have been a "set of hands" behind the creation of naturally occurring objects - especially not in the same way that you make that connection with a painting or a watch. It doesn't follow - no matter how much you'd like it to.

 

[Skwim]

Evolution without Creation IS abiogenesis.

No it's not. Consider,

Evolution: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Abiogenesis: the natural process of life arising from non-living matter.​

Note how evolution deals with the development of something already existing, and that abiogenesis deals with bringing something into existence. In this case, life from non-life. Just as a mother gives birth to a son, but is not herself the son, so too abiogenesis gives birth to evolution, but is not itself evolution.

NOW, you might say that, "If evolution did not arise through the hand of god then it would have to have arisen through abiogenesis," which, although not necessarily true, is at least a bit more sensible. It's failing is in thinking that abiogenesis and god are the only ways by which evolution could have arisen on Earth. Panspermia, is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, and is distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.

There is no need to attempt to lecture me.

Well, I think someone should help out you, and who ever else might believe what you say. Don't you?


.

 

[Shad]

Every effect has a cause. Automobiles, houses, computers, and wooden spoons do not occur without an intelligent maker. How much less logical to assume DNA, molecular machines, and other brilliant "products" are not the result of a superior Intellect and a Designer and Fabricator brilliant beyond measure.

Atomic decay doesn't. Your argument has collapsed at it's first step.

Your comparison is flawed as we know those are constructed items as we can identify not only the process but the one creating these objects. This is nothing but the long refuted watchmaker analogy.

The rest of your argument are nothing more than arguments from incredulity. I can't understand X therefore God.

 

[Skwim]

Atomic decay doesn't. Your argument has collapsed at it's first step.

Are you saying that when an unstable atomic nuclei finally breaks into smaller, more stable fragments, there is no precipitating cause that makes it happen at that particular moment rather than at some other moment? That it's a truly random, uncaused act?


.