Age of Earth

[outhouse]

Out of thankful hearts, we will serve Him forever and would die for Him

Faith can be very dangerous when one has no knowledge on topics in which he would die for.

 

[dust1n]

Either an unknown cause made the singularity explode and that random explosion led to all we see around us, or an all-powerful being made it all with purpose and design, giving things like laws of physics, mathematics, logic, nature, etc...

Think about this for a second. Either something entirely unknown led to all we see around us, or an all-powerful being made it all with purpose and design, despite the fact that we know that we don't know the cause? If the option is between "I don't know" and "I don't know, but it must be a God," how is the latter of those two options in anyway scientific or justified, or even in contraction with any known observable about the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory isn't "we don't know what caused the explosion," it is the "explosion" and all the evidence that "explosion" left in the universe for anyone to see, and we just don't know why it happened. The only other option is to assume god did it, because we like to imagine this existence with "purpose."

Anyway, I think people will do anything to say there are no miracles, I get to make my own rules, and I'm too smart for this God stuff. I wish I could make the case as well as some very smart Christians out there, but I'll eventually get there. You probably will say that Christian will do anything to defend God. We both come at the data with presuppositions.

Right, yet you've ignored the overwhelming evidence for common descent I've put forth over and over. Why is that?

 

[dust1n]

"
Chromosome 2 in humans
Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)
Further information: Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site in chimpanzees


Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[20][21]

The evidence for this includes:

• The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[22][23]
• The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[24]
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[25]

Chromosome 2 thus presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[25]

Cytochrome c and b
Main article: Cytochrome c
A classic example of biochemical evidence for evolution is the variance of the ubiquitous (i.e. all living organisms have it, because it performs very basic life functions) protein Cytochrome c in living cells. The variance of cytochrome c of different organisms is measured in the number of differing amino acids, each differing amino acid being a result of a base pair substitution, a mutation. If each differing amino acid is assumed the result of one base pair substitution, it can be calculated how long ago the two species diverged by multiplying the number of base pair substitutions by the estimated time it takes for a substituted base pair of the cytochrome c gene to be successfully passed on. For example, if the average time it takes for a base pair of the cytochrome c gene to mutate is N years, the number of amino acids making up the cytochrome c protein in monkeys differ by one from that of humans, this leads to the conclusion that the two species diverged N years ago.

The primary structure of cytochrome c consists of a chain of about 100 amino acids. Many higher order organisms possess a chain of 104 amino acids.[26]

The cytochrome c molecule has been extensively studied for the glimpse it gives into evolutionary biology. Both chicken and turkeys have identical sequence homology (amino acid for amino acid), as do pigs, cows and sheep. Both humans and chimpanzees share the identical molecule, while rhesus monkeys share all but one of the amino acids:[27] the 66th amino acid is isoleucine in the former and threonine in the latter.[26]

What makes these homologous similarities particularly suggestive of common ancestry in the case of cytochrome c, in addition to the fact that the phylogenies derived from them match other phylogenies very well, is the high degree of functional redundancy of the cytochrome c molecule. The different existing configurations of amino acids do not significantly affect the functionality of the protein, which indicates that the base pair substitutions are not part of a directed design, but the result of random mutations that aren't subject to selection.[28]

In addition, Cytochrome b is commonly used as a region of mitochondrial DNA to determine phylogenetic relationships between organisms due to its sequence variability. It is considered most useful in determining relationships within families and genera. Comparative studies involving cytochrome b have resulted in new classification schemes and have been used to assign newly described species to a genus, as well as deepen the understanding of evolutionary relationships.[29]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_common_descent#Genetics

Genetics = Science

Bible + Creationism = Literally Nothing to do with Science

 

[viole]

Why do you suppose we have these needs? Are we just weak and need to evolve out of them, or might we truly have something missing?

I am not sure that anyone needs to evolve out of anything. Whatever we have is good enough or irrelevant in order to be here and survive, otherwise we would not have it.

For the same reason I don't think we are missing something. My point is that those needs are a by-product of us having a big brain that can ask things like "what is the meaning of life?", "what am I?", "what am I doing here?", etc. Now, it entirely possible that our evolutionary path took place because it was better for our survival to have big brains that ask those questions, rather than having smaller brains that don't. Evolutionary paths are always trade-offs between advantages and disadvantages. Having big brains for our size is very effective in killing animals, planning, inventing trap, tools, etc. Therefore, the survival advantages more than offset the existential by-products, especially when there is a very simple meme that can cover this existentialism and can be co-selected: God.

To make an example: I believe that our invention of an afterlife is an extension of our fear of dying. And being afraid of dying, or trying to avoid it, is very effective for our survival, by definition. Who has it survives, who hasn't it, doesn't, in general. And extending this fear beyond our existence is like a misfiring of our neuronal network. Alas, from an evolutionary point of view it is much cheaper to have imperfect machines that misfire sometimes, especially when said belief concerns exiting the world and is therefore irrelevant from an evolutionary point of view.

However, when you are out in the wild, it is much better to have a gun that misfires sometimes than having no gun at all.

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

The first thing I'll address is the presupposing answers. I don't think we are the only ones doing that.Often it's a matter of making different conclusions from the same data. For instance like the universe expanding. We both say that since it is always expanding, there was a time when it was down to nothing (or a singularity caused by nothing). Either an unknown cause made the singularity explode and that random explosion led to all we see around us, or an all-powerful being made it all with purpose and design, giving things like laws of physics, mathematics, logic, nature, etc...

I will totally admit that every single person in this forum and in the world carries with them presuppositions. So on that point you're absolutely right.
And sure, using our preconceived ideas and past experiences and presuppositions we can absolutely look at the same set of data and make different conclusions.
Knowing this, and because the differences exist, we have to set some sort of standard by which we judge our opinions and conclusions. Surely you agree with that. I mean, what good is math without an agreed upon standard? What good is language without some agreed upon rules? What good is science without an agreed upon testing method?

Evidence is that standard.

Using your above example, we agree that we can measure the speed at which things are moving away from other things in space. You and I aren't arguing about the actual results or the data set in this analogy, right? We obviously agree on the data because the data is simply a collection of observable facts. The Universe is obviously expanding. So in that example we look at the same data sets and we totally agree with each other about what they say. Where we vary are on the personal conclusions that we make after internalizing those data sets.

I think we have to use the same rationality when discussing our conclusions. the goal of each of us should be accuracy and truth, regardless of where it leads.
If you look at a data set and assume a supernatural origin, and I look at a data set and assume a materialistic origin, we have to be able to test our biases and presuppositions.

By the way, what do you think about Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument?

I've listened to Behe speak quite a bit and he's probably the most eloquent of the ID movement people, but his idea is simply not science.
He's a perfect example of the kind of person I was speaking of in my previous response. He can be poetic, and he can make a great argument, which I believe has it's place in Philosophy. But it's just not Science...

Personally, I think life manifests itself in any number of ways. All of existence, even, is simply a variant of a variant, much like water is a variant of molecules that on their own are not water.
I mean, while yes there are countless varieties of plants, they are all still plants, right? And while there are countless varieties of animals, they are all still animals, right? Any one organism is little more than a variation of life. And since we know that all life is connected genetically, I think the concept of irreducible complexity is just a result of Behe ceasing his scientific questioning and fully embracing his faith.

Complexity emerges anywhere that variables exist. We know this from observation in the physical sciences and even in our own lives. It's like how speciation can occur anywhere that changes in the environment exist. There's going to be as much complexity in the Universe as there are variables...and there are a lot of variables.

Also, I always hear that majority equals truth on these matters. Everyone knows that if someone in the scientific community expresses doubt in the adequacy of the prevailing theory (not just creationists or religious people), he will be fired, denied tenure, discredited, etc... If they want to keep their academic careers, they'd better keep their mouths shut. -not exactly academic freedom. People really don't like things that are not testable in a lab, so when Darwin (and some before him) wrote about his theory, people jumped at something that didn't include God. People are like moths to a flame toward anything that lets them declare themselves God, lets them call the shots, make the rules, and get out of judgment. Now, do religious people often accredit too many things to miracles? absolutely yes. But that does not mean miracles have never happened.

There's a lot of little thoughts in your paragraph so bare with me as I attempt to address them in order.

That's not totally how the scientific community works. Skepticism is the very foundation of science, in a way. Without it, scientists would find it very difficult to pose probing questions. And there are some people who have made their entire scientific careers focused on discrediting other people's work. This isn't a bad thing, I don't think, because truth is more important that feeling good about your work. What good is your work, ultimately, if it's missing pieces or made some faulty assumptions, you know what I mean?

While it is true that majority rules in the scientific community, it's not in some malicious way. If a vast majority of experts in any field have come to a conclusion about something, then a handful of people with a different view are going to have to truly show how and why the accepted view is wrong and then express a more accurate alternate theory. Again, it's all based on the quality and quantity of evidence. If 80-90% of the members of this forum had a consensus about something, it would a pretty gargantuan effort from the dissenting members to show how and why the 80-90% were mistaken and why their presented counter proposal was worth their time, right? It's a really simple concept once you break it down. (This place has a very high Theist rate - which is why we minority atheists have to try so hard )

People who are denied tenure, or who are fired, do so for not producing legitimate work, for producing fraudulent work, or for simply not being able to do their job. I can't think of any stories off the top of my head where someone was punished like that simply for questioning accepted thought. If that happens then it's against the nature of scientific inquiry.

Like with my first paragraph above, the great equalizer is evidence. The great standard is the scientific method.
Any hypothesis should be respected, provided it can support itself with data and that it can endure some rigorous testing and peer review. The problem with ID is that it does neither... Without the God presupposition it can't hold it's own weight. And when your whole argument for a scientific theory is based on the faulty logic of presuppositions, then your base is seriously flawed.

I think your understanding of what happens during the peer review process is a little skewed.
People didn't accept Darwin's work because it offered an objection to god - Darwin's work was accepted because it was so accurate, detailed, and supported. (Granted he got some things wrong) but the prevailing nature of Evolutionary Theory doesn't persist today because people hate your god... it persists because despite all of the testing and attempts to unravel it, it's holding strong. It persists because of the strength of its substantiating material. It persists because it's right.

Question: When you look around at all that man has made and accomplished and the vast amount of great literature and art that he has produced, do you really think he is just another animal?

Very advanced animals, but yes.
Like I've recommended before - take some time and study animal cognition, behavior, and society. If you walk away from a serious study into it without a better understanding of your connection to the rest of the animal kingdom I'll buy you a steak.

Another thing I would like to address is the New Testament manuscripts as showing Jesus to be unique and supernatural. The gospels have been put through every test of historicity that one would apply to any document of antiquity. They are written as history, and they were definitely written within a generation of the events (not enough time for legend). Even non-Christian historians agree that Luke (who wrote Luke and Acts) was a historian of the highest order.Plus, the number of early manuscripts we have makes us know that what we have is exactly what was originally written and in that sense, they are more reliable than anything we have about Julius Caesar or Plato.Jesus really did say He is God. He really did heal the blind, lame, and diseased. And He really did raise the dead (including Himself).
Why do you think this obscure carpenter is still worshipped today by so many? Leaders of other major religions today never claimed to be God, and some historical figures who did (like some Roman Emperors) were not worshipped for very long nor shown to be sinless. This guy is different. He backed up his claims with miracles and fulfilling hundreds of very specific prophesies written centuries before like the place and manner of His own birth and manner of His death.
Plus, true Christians will tell you that we know what it feels like to have our sins forgiven. Out of thankful hearts, we will serve Him forever and would die for Him. Isn't it strange for so many millions of people over the years to say that about this guy Jesus?
-I'm sure your answer is yes, that is strange.

Anyway, I think people will do anything to say there are no miracles, I get to make my own rules, and I'm too smart for this God stuff. I wish I could make the case as well as some very smart Christians out there, but I'll eventually get there. You probably will say that Christian will do anything to defend God. We both come at the data with presuppositions.

You and I live within a generation of Amelia Earhart's disappearance, right? I mean, I don't know your age but today we live roughly as far away from Amelia's last flight as the Gopsel of Mark was written from Jesus' timeline. Which of the legends about Amelia's life and her last flight do you hold? Which ones do I hold? Are they the same? How do either of us know which one is worth their salt?

My point is that legends and mythologies can start during a person's lifetime and can persist for hundreds and thousands of years after. Apply this to Elvis or Abraham Lincoln or General Custer or anyone else from History and you'll see what I mean.

So while I'll not dispute the historicity of some aspects of the New Testament, I'm not going to accept the documents at face value.
Let me ask you a question - What was Luke's actual name? What was Mark's actual name? What was Jesus's actual name? Who was Paul? Who was Timothy?
We know absolutely nothing about the writers of the New Testament other than what little they tell us about themselves or what we have concluded from a few passing references - and I've yet to meet anyone on this forum who can read the original Hebrew or Greek. The New Testament manuscripts writers are about as well-known as Aesop, who we know absolutely nothing about.

The earliest manuscripts come from a time period roughly 300-600 years after the fact. Anything older than that comes from documents that are non-canonical. So I'm not sure what you're comparing it to.
I treat the claims of Jesus, or any other religious figure with the same skepticism I would a modern street prophet. If you can show me a single example throughout History of magic being real, of people riding from their graves and walking around for 40 days, of spirits being cast out of pigs, of spit-mud healing blind people, or of teleporting and shapeshifting, then I'll take the claims of Jesus and the writer's of the NT a little more seriously. I don't say that to be utterly disrespectful - but you have to recognize that if I came to you claiming that I could levitate, then you could ask me to show you, wouldn't you? You would at least want some sort of proof that levitation was even possible, let alone that I could do it. Is there any evidence or proof anywhere that dead people can crack open their tombs and walk around? Is there any evidence anywhere that spit-mud and magic can heal blind people? Is there any evidence anywhere that demons live inside pigs?

You are defending that position only because you previously accepted that position as true and then you have to back up your logic to make it fit. You wouldn't make the same excuses for your rationality in other areas of your life - so why do you do it here?

It's not any more odd for people to worship Jesus than it is for people to worship Zeus and his lightning bolt from Mount Olympus or for people to worship the 4-armed blue god Shiva . By your own logic wouldn't you lend validity to the claims of those gods since millions upon millions of people have worshiped them, and have done so for thousands of years? Surely there must be something special about the claims of Hinduism, since it has persisted for so long...

 

[Petra14]

I will totally admit that every single person in this forum and in the world carries with them presuppositions. So on that point you're absolutely right.
And sure, using our preconceived ideas and past experiences and presuppositions we can absolutely look at the same set of data and make different conclusions.
Knowing this, and because the differences exist, we have to set some sort of standard by which we judge our opinions and conclusions. Surely you agree with that. I mean, what good is math without an agreed upon standard? What good is language without some agreed upon rules? What good is science without an agreed upon testing method?

But wouldn't you agree that some things like the laws of math and the laws of logic we use for the scientific method (like the law of non-contradiction) are discovered and not made? I mean, why would nature follow laws that we agreed upon? -but it follows set patterns. Where did those patterns come from?

I think we have to use the same rationality when discussing our conclusions. the goal of each of us should be accuracy and truth, regardless of where it leads.
If you look at a data set and assume a supernatural origin, and I look at a data set and assume a materialistic origin, we have to be able to test our biases and presuppositions....

But don't we know that all matter itself couldn't have come from nothing (that is no-thing at all)?

I've listened to Behe speak quite a bit and he's probably the most eloquent of the ID movement people, but his idea is simply not science.
He's a perfect example of the kind of person I was speaking of in my previous response. He can be poetic, and he can make a great argument, which I believe has it's place in Philosophy. But it's just not Science......

But don't philosophy and science work together to come to Truth?

While it is true that majority rules in the scientific community, it's not in some malicious way. If a vast majority of experts in any field have come to a conclusion about something, then a handful of people with a different view are going to have to truly show how and why the accepted view is wrong and then express a more accurate alternate theory. Again, it's all based on the quality and quantity of evidence. If 80-90% of the members of this forum had a consensus about something, it would a pretty gargantuan effort from the dissenting members to show how and why the 80-90% were mistaken and why their presented counter proposal was worth their time, right? It's a really simple concept once you break it down. (This place has a very high Theist rate - which is why we minority atheists have to try so hard )...

I'm fully confident that our camp is growing and our percentage will keep getting higher. What do you think of the work that the Institute for Creation Research puts out?

People didn't accept Darwin's work because it offered an objection to god - Darwin's work was accepted because it was so accurate, detailed, and supported. (Granted he got some things wrong) but the prevailing nature of Evolutionary Theory doesn't persist today because people hate your god... it persists because despite all of the testing and attempts to unravel it, it's holding strong. It persists because of the strength of its substantiating material. It persists because it's right. ...

We'll see.

Very advanced animals, but yes.
Like I've recommended before - take some time and study animal cognition, behavior, and society. If you walk away from a serious study into it without a better understanding of your connection to the rest of the animal kingdom I'll buy you a steak. ...

I promise I'll look at it.
Question: If there is no real meaning in life, we have no real free will, and there is no real life after death (on which we disagree), how does one keep from being in total despair or going mad like Nietzsche? 'just wondering.

You and I live within a generation of Amelia Earhart's disappearance, right? I mean, I don't know your age but today we live roughly as far away from Amelia's last flight as the Gopsel of Mark was written from Jesus' timeline. Which of the legends about Amelia's life and her last flight do you hold? Which ones do I hold? Are they the same? How do either of us know which one is worth their salt?

My point is that legends and mythologies can start during a person's lifetime and can persist for hundreds and thousands of years after. Apply this to Elvis or Abraham Lincoln or General Custer or anyone else from History and you'll see what I mean.

So while I'll not dispute the historicity of some aspects of the New Testament, I'm not going to accept the documents at face value.
Let me ask you a question - What was Luke's actual name? What was Mark's actual name? What was Jesus's actual name? Who was Paul? Who was Timothy?
We know absolutely nothing about the writers of the New Testament other than what little they tell us about themselves or what we have concluded from a few passing references - and I've yet to meet anyone on this forum who can read the original Hebrew or Greek. The New Testament manuscripts writers are about as well-known as Aesop, who we know absolutely nothing about.

The earliest manuscripts come from a time period roughly 300-600 years after the fact. Anything older than that comes from documents that are non-canonical. So I'm not sure what you're comparing it to.
I treat the claims of Jesus, or any other religious figure with the same skepticism I would a modern street prophet. If you can show me a single example throughout History of magic being real, of people riding from their graves and walking around for 40 days, of spirits being cast out of pigs, of spit-mud healing blind people, or of teleporting and shapeshifting, then I'll take the claims of Jesus and the writer's of the NT a little more seriously. I don't say that to be utterly disrespectful - but you have to recognize that if I came to you claiming that I could levitate, then you could ask me to show you, wouldn't you? You would at least want some sort of proof that levitation was even possible, let alone that I could do it. Is there any evidence or proof anywhere that dead people can crack open their tombs and walk around? Is there any evidence anywhere that spit-mud and magic can heal blind people? Is there any evidence anywhere that demons live inside pigs?

You are defending that position only because you previously accepted that position as true and then you have to back up your logic to make it fit. You wouldn't make the same excuses for your rationality in other areas of your life - so why do you do it here?

It's not any more odd for people to worship Jesus than it is for people to worship Zeus and his lightning bolt from Mount Olympus or for people to worship the 4-armed blue god Shiva . By your own logic wouldn't you lend validity to the claims of those gods since millions upon millions of people have worshiped them, and have done so for thousands of years? Surely there must be something special about the claims of Hinduism, since it has persisted for so long...

I'll work on the arguments here. You know it's one thing to read a lot and another to be able to coherently argue that information.
I know that experiential arguments alone don't fly here.

No one can prove or disprove God in an iron-clad way, which is a frustration for both sides.
I appreciate you taking the time to entertain my beginner-level arguments, and I hope to live several more decades to improve and get sharper.

 

[Petra14]

I am not sure that anyone needs to evolve out of anything. Whatever we have is good enough or irrelevant in order to be here and survive, otherwise we would not have it.

For the same reason I don't think we are missing something. My point is that those needs are a by-product of us having a big brain that can ask things like "what is the meaning of life?", "what am I?", "what am I doing here?", etc. Now, it entirely possible that our evolutionary path took place because it was better for our survival to have big brains that ask those questions, rather than having smaller brains that don't. Evolutionary paths are always trade-offs between advantages and disadvantages. Having big brains for our size is very effective in killing animals, planning, inventing trap, tools, etc. Therefore, the survival advantages more than offset the existential by-products, especially when there is a very simple meme that can cover this existentialism and can be co-selected: God.

To make an example: I believe that our invention of an afterlife is an extension of our fear of dying. And being afraid of dying, or trying to avoid it, is very effective for our survival, by definition. Who has it survives, who hasn't it, doesn't, in general. And extending this fear beyond our existence is like a misfiring of our neuronal network. Alas, from an evolutionary point of view it is much cheaper to have imperfect machines that misfire sometimes, especially when said belief concerns exiting the world and is therefore irrelevant from an evolutionary point of view.

However, when you are out in the wild, it is much better to have a gun that misfires sometimes than having no gun at all.

Ciao

- viole

--Good response for representing your viewpoint

 

[jonathan180iq]

I appreciate you taking the time to entertain my beginner-level arguments

You're totally fine, man.
I'll wait until you give a total response to write more - but I will say I'm glad you're open to having a conversation about this stuff instead of just trying to bark over-done theological arguments.
The conversation that I think we are developing is what ReligiousForums is all about, and it sadly doesn't happen enough.

 

[Petra14]

Think about this for a second. Either something entirely unknown led to all we see around us, or an all-powerful being made it all with purpose and design, despite the fact that we know that we don't know the cause? If the option is between "I don't know" and "I don't know, but it must be a God," how is the latter of those two options in anyway scientific or justified, or even in contraction with any known observable about the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory isn't "we don't know what caused the explosion," it is the "explosion" and all the evidence that "explosion" left in the universe for anyone to see, and we just don't know why it happened. The only other option is to assume god did it, because we like to imagine this existence with "purpose."



Right, yet you've ignored the overwhelming evidence for common descent I've put forth over and over. Why is that?

What do you think about the fine-tuning of the universe argument? I'm just curious how a random explosion can produce something that statistically-speaking would be impossible to achieve.

I'm not ignoring your evidence, and if it appears so, I apologize. And I appreciate you taking the time to put it out there. It just takes me more time than I have sometimes to do it justice. I've seen much of this before, and I can't fully argue it yet, because I would need some more training to do so, but I rely on people who do have that training. What do you think of this article I just saw on this topic?

http://www.icr.org/article/8830

 

[dust1n]

What do you think about the fine-tuning of the universe argument?

(1) The boundary conditions and laws of physics could not have been too different from the way they actually are if the Universe is to contain (carbon-based) life. (2) The Universe does contain (carbon-based) life. Hence: (3) The Universe as we find it is improbable. (4) The best explanation for this improbable fact is that the Universe was created by some intelligence. Hence: (5) A Universe-creating intelligence exists.

Why this is logically incorrect:

http://www.colyvan.com/papers/finetuning.pdf

I'm just curious how a random explosion can produce something that statistically-speaking would be impossible to achieve.

If something is statistically impossible to achieve, then you would actually need to demonstrate the statistics in math. I can say that anything is statistically-speaking impossible to achieve, and it would remain unsubstantiated until time that I actually used statistics in anyway. Likelihood in statistics isn't just what we think to be likely. Either way, the Big Bang isn't really an explosion in a technical sense. An explosion is combustion. The Big Bang theory is just the all the evidence that makes it look like the universe has expanded from a single point. No one is ever going to know what caused more than likely, at least not at any in our live times.

Either: We don't know. Or we don't but there's probably someone up there that did it and he probably looks and thinks like us and does this like we do like love and feel and stuff, despite the fact there is no way one could actually ever know this.

I'm not ignoring your evidence, and if it appears so, I apologize. And I appreciate you taking the time to put it out there. It just takes me more time than I have sometimes to do it justice. I've seen much of this before, and I can't fully argue it yet, because I would need some more training to do so, but I rely on people who do have that training. What do you think of this article I just saw on this topic?

http://www.icr.org/article/8830

In the article, the guy is responding to the gaps in the understanding of centomeres in 1991.

So does human chromosome 2 have the telltale DNA evidence of a fusion event? Yes, it does.

The authors of the 1982 Science paper had no hesitancy in declaring that "the telomeric fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q accounts for the reduction of the 24 pairs of chromosomes of the great apes to 23 in modern man." But they could not confirm this with the high-powered techniques of modern genetics.

In a 2005 study published in Nature, however, the "precise fusion site" was located on human chromosome 2. The paper noted the presence of "multiple subtelomeric duplications" in this location (i.e., the expected telomere DNA) and also the vestiges of a second centromere on the chromosome that has since been "inactivated" (represented by the orange region above). In a 2012 study, meanwhile, an international team of scientists published a more detailed evolutionary account of how modern-day versions of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla chromosomes attained their current form. (For an easy-to-understand explanation of what they found, seehere.)...

Because the evidence about human chromosome 2 and its evolutionary origins is so striking, it has naturally become a major target for attempted creationist refutations. "People are so bothered by this," remarks Miller.

Indeed, in a journal published by Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham's organization, there's a lengthy and wonky attempted rebuttal by a creationist geneticist namedJeffrey Tomkins. Tomkins naturally finds all kinds of supposed problems with the genetic evidence; perhaps his biggest claim is that at the alleged site on human chromosome 2 where the fusion occurred, there's actually a functioning gene, rather than the remnants of fused telomeres. "The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene," Tomkins writes at another creationist site, the Institute for Creation Research.

But that's just wrong, according to Miller. The fusion site is "more than 1,300 bases away from the gene," he says, based on a review of major gene databanks. "These increasingly desperate efforts to 'debunk' the chromosome 2 story have failed before, and they've failed this time, too," Miller concludes. "Once again, we can see that the story of human evolution is written not only in the language of bones and fossils, but in the far more eloquent script of the human genome."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

Also, the ICR is a joke:

"In June 1981, the ICR received formal state approval in California to offer degree programs, and its first graduate level courses were taught in the summer of that year.[27][28]

In 1988, the ICR sought re-approval. A five-person committee from theCalifornia Department of Education sent to evaluate ICR's degree program found its graduate school consisted of only five full-time faculty and some courses were videotaped rather than professor-led instruction. The committee failed to grant re-approval by 3–2 vote, a move the ICR attributed to "religious intolerance" rather than criticisms of the quality of education it provided.[4] This resulted in California's State Superintendent of Public Instruction barring the institute from granting master's degrees in science, which encompassed their existing graduate degree programs in the teaching of biology, geology, astrogeophysics and science.[29]

ICR filed a lawsuit against California's State Superintendent, Bill Honig, and was awarded a settlement of $225,000 and given permission to continue its program until 1995 so long as it continued to teach evolution alongside creationism.[30]The original agreement expired in 1995, and California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education(BPPVE) granted the ICR religious exemption from postsecondary school requirements in California.[31]

In 1982, the ICR received accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools(TRACS). According to Morris, TRACS and ICR founder, TRACS is a "product of the ICR Graduate School" and was created "Because of the prejudice against creation-science, outspoken creationist schools such as ICRGS used to stand little or no chance of getting recognition through accreditation."[32] TRACS was officially recognized as an accreditor by the US Department of Education in 1991. Following the ICR's move to Dallas, in November 2007, TRACS terminated its accredited status after the ICR requested its termination.[33] Texas does not recognize TRACS' accreditation.[20]

The ICR's relocation to Texas required Texas state approval or accreditation by a regional accrediting agency, in this case Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).[34] In 2007, the ICR applied for a temporary state certification there which would have allowed the institute to operate while it pursues accreditation through SACS.[35] In December 2007, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) received an advisory committee recommendation to allow the ICR to start offering online master’s degrees in science education.

The Board originally planned to decide on the issue at their January 2008 meeting.[34] At the time it applied, ICR graduate school had approximately 30 to 50 students, most teachers from private Christian schools or home-schoolers, and four full-time faculty.[1][2][36]

After seeking the advice from an independent panel, the Chairman of the Texas Board requested information about the research conducted by the faculty, how an on-line program would expose students to the experimental side of science, and asked why "[t]heir curriculum doesn't line up very well with the curriculum available in conventional master of science programs."[37] Subsequently, the ICR asked the THECB to delay its decision until their next meeting, on April 24, 2008 to give them time to respond.[37] Inside Higher Ed reported "lobbying — by scientists against the institute, and by others in its favor — is going strong."[38]

The Dallas Morning News obtained some of the messages sent to the board and published a number of examples and summaries that illustrated how intense the debate had become.[39] Following the response from the ICR to the Board, Steven Schafersman, of the Texas Citizens for Science, reported that the ICR sent out "prayer requests" and is currently arguing a creationist derived distinction of science in their application for approval.[40]

On April 23, 2008, education board's Academic Excellence and Research Committee unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees citing "the institute’s program is infused with creationism and runs counter to conventions of science that hold that claims of supernatural intervention are not testable and therefore lie outside the realm of science."[41] On the following day the full Board unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees. The decision was "based the recommendation on two considerations:

1. ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program meets acceptable standards of science and science education.
2. The proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules which require the accurate labeling or designation of programs … Since the proposed degree program inadequately covers key areas of science, it cannot be properly designated either as 'science' or 'science education.'"[42]

The ICR said it would appeal the decision saying the Education Board was guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."[43]Instead, in April 2009, the ICR sued the THECB in federal court for imposing "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties" and asked for the ability to award science degrees.[44][45] In June 2010, a judge ruled in favor of the Texas Higher Education saying the ICR "is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information."[46]The judge concluded, "The Court simply comes to the conclusion, which is inescapable, that the [THECB] decision was rationally related to a legitimate state interest."[47][48] In the September 2010 ICR newsletter, Henry Morris III, the ICR's chief executive officer, wrote "ICR's legal battle is over" after the Judge ruled in favor of the Texas Board.[49][50]

In 2010, the ICR board of directors voted to close the ICR Graduate School and open a School of Biblical Apologetics, offering a Master of Christian Education degree with Creation Research being one of four minors.[49][51] The ICR noted that "Due to the nature of ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics — a predominantly religious education school — it is exempt from licensing by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.[49]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

 

[David M]

I've listened to Behe speak quite a bit and he's probably the most eloquent of the ID movement people, but his idea is simply not science.

As he clearly stated while under oath at the Dover trial when he admitted that for ID to be considered a scientific theory it would require such an expansion of the definition that would then qualify astrology as science.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A(Behe) Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

 

[gnostic]

What do you think about the fine-tuning of the universe argument? I'm just curious how a random explosion can produce something that statistically-speaking would be impossible to achieve.

If you are talking about explosions as in the stars going supernova, then there are nothing random about it. Every stars that have enough "mass" will reach a critical mass, and go supernova.

But if you are talking about about the Big Bang, then there was no explosion. The Big Bang is actually about the expansion of the universe, which also mean the inflationary of space and time.

The name Big Bang is actually a misnomer and inaccurate.

When I think of explosion, matters turn to energy, causing matter to split.

But with the Big Bang, it is the other way around. Energy create subatomic particles (quarks, electrons, photon), which in turn into atomic particles (protons, neutrons and atomic nuclei), as space expand and the early universe cool down. The first matters in the universe were hydrogen and helium, with traces of lithium. There was nothing heavier than lithium. The formations of these earlier matters from particles are no own as "Big Bang nucleosynthesis ".

Stars were formed because hydrogen were coalesced by gravity. With a enough mass of hydrogen, the core mass of hydrogen will thermonuclear react. The star's energy come from the nucleosynthesis of the stars at their cores, by fusing two hydrogen atoms into helium atom. This is known as "stellar nucleosynthesis".

Once star run out of hydrogen fuel, it will begin to fuse helium into heavier elements. And so on.

Explosion break apart matters. Nucleosynthesis, on the other hand, whether it the Big Bang or stellar nucleosynthesis, is making smaller particles or atoms into larger one.

Not all stars will go supernova. Our sun will not.

When our sun run out of hydrogen, it will fuse (nucleosynthesis) to form heavier elements, cause the sun become even hot hotter and large in volume, turning into the Red Giant, before all outer layers of the sun are stripped away, leaving only its sun core, which is known as the White Dwarf.

Other stars that are more massive, will actually make the star denser, more compact, with greater gravity field, thereby becoming a neutron star. Even more massive stars will turn into black hole, with gravity so great that not even light will escape n't he event horizon.

I'm sure you are confused by now. Ask any question if you want one of us to clarify what I am talking about.

But the short answer to your original statement/question is that the Big Bang is not about an explosion.

 

[jonathan180iq]

As he clearly stated while under oath at the Dover trial when he admitted that for ID to be considered a scientific theory it would require such an expansion of the definition that would then qualify astrology as science.

Right - He essentialy wants to change the definition of a Scientific Theory to allow for any random guesses about how life works.

 

[outhouse]

Right - He essentialy wants to change the definition of a Scientific Theory to allow for any random guesses about how life works.

Another factual case of pseudoscience preying on the ignorant.

 

[Petra14]

If you are talking about explosions as in the stars going supernova, then there are nothing random about it. Every stars that have enough "mass" will reach a critical mass, and go supernova.

But if you are talking about about the Big Bang, then there was no explosion. The Big Bang is actually about the expansion of the universe, which also mean the inflationary of space and time.

The name Big Bang is actually a misnomer and inaccurate.

When I think of explosion, matters turn to energy, causing matter to split.

But with the Big Bang, it is the other way around. Energy create subatomic particles (quarks, electrons, photon), which in turn into atomic particles (protons, neutrons and atomic nuclei), as space expand and the early universe cool down. The first matters in the universe were hydrogen and helium, with traces of lithium. There was nothing heavier than lithium. The formations of these earlier matters from particles are no own as "Big Bang nucleosynthesis ".

Stars were formed because hydrogen were coalesced by gravity. With a enough mass of hydrogen, the core mass of hydrogen will thermonuclear react. The star's energy come from the nucleosynthesis of the stars at their cores, by fusing two hydrogen atoms into helium atom. This is known as "stellar nucleosynthesis".

Once star run out of hydrogen fuel, it will begin to fuse helium into heavier elements. And so on.

Explosion break apart matters. Nucleosynthesis, on the other hand, whether it the Big Bang or stellar nucleosynthesis, is making smaller particles or atoms into larger one.

Not all stars will go supernova. Our sun will not.

When our sun run out of hydrogen, it will fuse (nucleosynthesis) to form heavier elements, cause the sun become even hot hotter and large in volume, turning into the Red Giant, before all outer layers of the sun are stripped away, leaving only its sun core, which is known as the White Dwarf.

Other stars that are more massive, will actually make the star denser, more compact, with greater gravity field, thereby becoming a neutron star. Even more massive stars will turn into black hole, with gravity so great that not even light will escape n't he event horizon.

I'm sure you are confused by now. Ask any question if you want one of us to clarify what I am talking about.

But the short answer to your original statement/question is that the Big Bang is not about an explosion.

Thank you for the explanation.

Isn't it pretty unlikely that an expansion that is not guided by anything could lead to something that can support life like us? Physicist Dr. Robin Collins says that for us to even have two of the over thirty factors that would have to be just right in order for us to live (the cosmological constant and the force of gravity), there would have to be a precision of one part in a hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. At what point to we call it impossible by pure chance? -especially when you put the chances of all the factors together. Some of the others are things like the electromagnetic force and the difference in mass between neutrons and protons.

But, I guess the bigger question is what caused the matter to exist in the first place that expanded? I know the answer is we don't know. However, it's pretty incredible to ponder the idea that all matter could have come into existence from absolutely nothing. Can nothing produce everything? What are your thoughts?

 

[outhouse]

However, it's pretty incredible to ponder the idea that all matter could have come into existence from absolutely nothing.

Define the matter in a black hole. Is that nothing? or factually something. Your keen on calling singularities nothing, or you pervert credible science to meet your theological motives, which is it?

No one is saying existence came from nothing.

I guess the bigger question is what caused the matter to exist in the first place that expanded?

A singularity, which are very common in nature.

Isn't it pretty unlikely that an expansion that is not guided by anything could lead to something that can support life like us?

No not at all.

We have liquid water on this planet, and other planets with water probably number in the trillions in the universe. Life like ours arose because of the environment we live in, so yes any changes and we as people would not be the same.

But there is not a shred of evidence outside imagination and mythology for any so called "guidance".



What we have learned is we do not make the same mistake ancient people make, and attribute nature to mythology because we don't understand nature fully. They did just that and many people now know well enough not to repeat these ancient mistakes

 

[gnostic]

Isn't it pretty unlikely that an expansion that is not guided by anything could lead to something that can support life like us?

What you called "guided" by some sorts of intelligent or sentient beings, I would call it purely SUPERSTITION or pseudoscience babbles.

How is people today, who make claims of Creation or Intelligent Design, be any different from superstitious primitive cultures or medieval superstition?

With natural world, there are always possibilities and probabilities of people figuring how nature work the way they do, without resorting to superstition by some gods, angels, demons, spirits or fairies are involved.

I don't see why everything required some people think that nature needed to be guide or designed by some supernatural or magical beings.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Only one in this little list has more than one PhD, but these are some that I like. You might not like them, but one would at least have to say they are not totally ignorant.

1. 
   Dr John Baumgardner(UCLA) Electrical engineering, space physicist, geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
   Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist (have to look up his school. He is Australian)
   Dr Gary E. Parker(Ball State University) Biology, cognate in geology (paleontology)
   (the late) Dr. A. E Wilder-Smith (Oxford) doctorates in organic chemistry, biochemistry, and one in biology and natural sciences
   Dr. Jason Lisle (University of Colorado), astrophysics
   Dr. Kurt Wise (Harvard), geology

I could go into research on these guys but I don't really have the time right now. However a few things to note. Dr John Baumgardner could not create supercomputer modeling of plate techtonics if he was a YEC. If he is then he is doing research from a point of view that is contrary to his beliefs. The second one is about Dr. A E Wilder-Smith. He is the father of the ID design and gained his degree's back in the 40's. This is significant because the science we learn in 2015 is different than the science we learned as little as just the year 2000. It was in the 80's (I believe 1981 but correct me if I'm wrong) that he wrote his book about his objections to evolution. However the book was countered effectively and thoroughly by the biologists of the day and the largest issue with the book is that he seemed to be arguing against Darwinian evolution rather than any semblance of the modern theory.

But to finnish up this point I don't think that creationists are idiotic people. It think many creationists are ignorant. The ones that aren't ignorant tend to be fundamentalist. There are none that stand upon the basis of evidence alone. Not even Wilder-Smith.

Even Wikipedia searches would show much more than that on these guys. Ravi Zacharias has more than just an undergraduate, and I assure you that he has a lot of knowledge of every major faith (or non-faith) system in the world and is well-respected around the world.
Both of these guys' brilliance is seen when you hear them speak or read their writings. They are masters of answering questions well and thoughtfully, even if you disagree with their answers.
My point here is not that you have to agree with what they say, but that there are brilliant people in every major faith (or non-faith) group and in every field of study. I have heard brilliant Atheists, brilliant Muslims, brilliant Hindus, brilliant Buddhists, and brilliant Christians. It just isn't true that every believer in a deity is just foolish or stupid. (I realize you did not call them stupid, but I hear that claim a lot). Maybe philosophy and theology have merit in addition to the sciences as ways of searching for Truth.

"Truth" is just what matches reality. Science is the only one that searches for verification of theories. Philosphy is useful as a tool as is science but doesn't have the practical applications in the real world on the same level. It has practical applications in creating systems that work. Theology however has never produced anything. The best examples I can see are where the Church as an organization has done things that help science of philosophy along but never the religion itself.

Though to repeat I don't think theists are idiots. I think that YEC are objectively wrong. I believe OEC to be wrong as well but not for any objective evidence but rather the fact that they lack any evidence.

You are probably just reading the attacks on the documents, and there are many. No serious historian (Christian or not), though, argues that at least Jesus lived, died by crucifixion, was reportedly seen after his death, did strange/maybe miraculous things, and his followers (who claim he was God) died for those beliefs. These things are reported in non-biblical, non-Christian texts from the period. It at least makes one think. -and that is just a very small part of the defense, not the whole reason why I believe it.

No I have looked at the evidences and there is nothing about Jesus's miracles or anything really other than that there was a Rabbi named Yeshua of the time. Nothing about walking on water, resurrecting the dead, rising from the grave, ect. I think there is enough to say that there was probably a real life inspiration for the Chracter of Jesus that was most likely a highly progressive Rabbi who gained quite a following but doubtful he ever preformed any kind of miracles.

And on the "dying for their beliefs" what do you make of the ones who died for Muhammad? Or died for any other religion? Christianity isn't in any way special in this regard. If someone dying for it is enough to believe that it was true what of the cults out west where several hundred people killed themselves in belief that they would ascend into a comet?

You might not believe my story (and why should you? You don't know me). One person whose went from atheist to Christian and documented his quest is Lee Strobel.
Do you think it's impossible for someone to really hate God and be out to disprove Him and then turn and love Him?

I think it is highly possible that someone who had a belief in god had a time where they were unahappy with their lives and blamed it on god. Then then attempted to spite god but eventually caved back into the teachings that they had as a child. Psychologically this is a common thing to happen. Typically starting around 13 or so you begin to become more rebellious and this trend continues till about the late 20's or early 30's when in most cases people fall back onto the values they were taught as children. So if I had to guess you had a Christian upbringing and between the ages of 15-25 you lost your way with god for a few years and then in you mid 20's to early 30's came back to the fold with vengeance.

If empathy is an evolved trait, then why do so many people murder, assault, and harm each other all the time? Shouldn't they also have it? I seem to have to teach empathy to children, because they mostly don't seem to naturally treat each other well. Are you stronger and more evolved than those murderers are?
I agree that we have to work together, but if survival is the only goal, then we don't care about other people, because they are people and as such, worth caring about. They become just a means to an end.

You can't teach empathy. Its not something that can be learned. It is innate. However we can force ourselves to choose what the empathy covers. There are people who expand their "tribe" to only mean their family. Some who only extend it to themselves. Some expand it to the whole animal kingdom and find the concept of eating meat to be terrible and near cannibalistic.

Its rather simple. We have the ability to feel empathy (most of us) but it is precisely for these reasons that we do commit atrocities. Someone might steal or kill for money for their family. For themselves if they feel slighted. They may murder out of love or pain. Racism is born out of an empathy for one's race and seeing anyone outside that race as an "outsider" and thus triggers instincts to protect your tribe. People would kill for their children all the time. And as stated before people can murder for selfish reasons despite the ability to feel empathy.

Also an interesting note on children. Children often do not have the concept of empathy developed cognitively till about the age of five or six. And even then it isn't fully developed until one is a teenager. And I will retract one thing. You can help "develop" empathy and the rules in which it applies as children. However these are morals not empathy itself. If you don't have empathy you can't be taught it.

Do you really believe that each life is meaningless?

On a grand scale? Yes. On a personal scale, every life has meaning and should be treated as such. Not to mention no life is worth more than another. That is another philosophical point I believe in.

Would it ever make sense for someone to sacrifice himself for someone who is elderly, terminally ill, or severely disabled?
Also, why do you care if your tribe lives on if, once you die, you believe you will never know you were here?

Because it matters little for your personal survival. In the grand scheme it is the ones who pass on their DNA. The ones that pass on their DNA will be the ones who most successfully do this. If I die and my sister lives to pass on my DNA for me then its better for me to die than for all of us to die. Now the mechanism that was developed is "empathy". Its imperfect for the function but works well enough. We develop strong social bonds with people and thus we will be more likely to sacrifice ourselves or our wellbeing or our time for people even if it doesn't make sense in the context of the specific event. So long as it works on the large scale.

But to prove something to you think about hearing that someone's grandmother died. You feel sorry for them? Now imagine someone told you that their five year old little girl died. That pulls at the heart strings a little more doesn't it? We tend to value younger lives more than older lives. We tend to value females more than males innately. We tend to value close relatives that we grew up with more than our cousins. And our cousins more than strangers. However we tend to value our mates more than any of them. Especially males who value their female mates but it runs both ways. And lastly the things that we find most precious out of everything is our own children. This is the norm for how we see value in lives and it fits perfectly in a triage of who can most effectively pass on our own genetic information.

Unrelated question I wonder about: Does it ever bother you to think that people who commit horrific crimes and never face justice here will not only not be judged, but they will never know they did it after they die? (I'm assuming you don't believe in Judgment Day. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Yeah it bothers me. It bothers me a lot. Know what bothers me more? People that have horrific things done to them and never receive justice. People that never know what its like to have a good life or to be loved. Its not about hating those that have done wrong but about feeling grief for the ones that were wronged. If hundred murders could go free to save one life I would do it.

However what I "want" and my desire for justice and fairness doesn't dictate what I believe. Because what then separates beliefs from fantasies?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Isn't it pretty unlikely that an expansion that is not guided by anything could lead to something that can support life like us?

How and why would you make that assumption and how do you define "guided"? If you pour oil into a glass of water, the oil rises to the top and the water stays beneath the oil. This is a repeatable effect that is a result of inherent, physical properties in the structure of oil and water interacting in an environment governed by certain physical and chemical laws. Would you say that this process is "guided"? Why can the formation of life not be the result of a similar cause - simply chemical elements interacting in a particular state, governed by physical and chemical laws? Is this not "guiding"?

Physicist Dr. Robin Collins says that for us to even have two of the over thirty factors that would have to be just right in order for us to live (the cosmological constant and the force of gravity), there would have to be a precision of one part in a hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. At what point to we call it impossible by pure chance? -especially when you put the chances of all the factors together. Some of the others are things like the electromagnetic force and the difference in mass between neutrons and protons.

What is that calculation based on? It is only based on the probability of life arising in one specific state. It is arbitrarily easy to deduce that a particular formation or state is statistically impossible to occur. A tiny grain of sand, for example, requires around 100 million million million individual atoms to be assembled in a very specific way in order for that single grain of sand to be in the state that it currently is. Does this make beaches impossible to occur in nature? Of course not, because using such calculations to deduce the "probability" of a specific formation of atoms forming ignores the simple fact that these formations are not formed by mere chance, but the interaction of physical elements in an environment governed by physical laws. In a Universe made up of an incalculable number of planets and suns, it stands to reason that at least one or more of those planets would result in existing in a physical state that allows for the formation of life as we currently know it, but that's not sufficient reason to assume that life arise through some miraculous means.

But, I guess the bigger question is what caused the matter to exist in the first place that expanded? I know the answer is we don't know. However, it's pretty incredible to ponder the idea that all matter could have come into existence from absolutely nothing. Can nothing produce everything? What are your thoughts?

Nobody here claims matter comes from nothing. We don't know where matter comes from, nor do we have sufficient reason to speculate, nor do we even know whether "nothing" is even a viable concept, or what this theoretical "nothing" is even capable of producing.