Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[George-ananda]

A good point. Since there is zero evidence of a supernatural universe, it's absurd to propose one, at the moment.

Zero evidence???? What about miracles, 101 different kinds of paranormal phenomenas, etc.

It's all evidence for a supernatural universe. Now you may debate against the evidence but it is evidence that must be addressed. People confuse the word evidence with proof.

From Wikipedia:

Evidence - Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

I keep hearing on RF that there is no evidence for the supernatural. This is not even debatedly wrong. It's just wrong by definition.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And how do you define 'purpose'?

I have answered this question about five times and i refuse to answer it again.

What if you come back to the rats after 24 hours and find they have made a knot.
You look at the knot and think "wow, this looks pretty. I think I will hang this 'rat-art' up on the wall".
Or you look at the knot and think "this is a nice ball, I think I will give it to the kids out side who just lost their ball". The kids are happy and start playing with it.

Completely ignored the point I made about that rats making a "string house" out of the string. So until you respond to that, this is all I will say to this.

Now you have something which was not designed but can be used sucessfully for something. Does that mean that it has a purpose?
Is the ball now 1) designed with a purpose, 2) not designed with a purpose, 3) designed with no purpose or 4) not designed with no purpose?

You continue to miss the point. Any person or thing can use any object for purposeful meaning. If It snows outside, and I go out and make a snow angel, then I am using the snow for the purpose of making a snow angel. That is a completely different than the snow falling for the purpose of humans making snow angels. The snow doesnt fall with the purpose of "I will fall so that humans can make snow angels out of me". I have made this distinction already, yet you keep giving these examples that doesn't have anything to do with what I am talking about.

There you go again: object A (for example the space shuttle) is designed, therefore object B (the human body) is designed.
You have absolutely no logical reason to make that jump.

I do have a logical reason to make this jump. Even if I didn't know that space ships were built by humans I would have a hard time believing that it assembled itself without any guidance from an intelligent mind. You guys are using this cop out excuse "we know space shuttles were built by humans, etc". Ok, thats fine. But my point is, EVEN IF I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SPACE SHUTTLES WERE BUILT BY MAN, I still wouldn't believe that it assembled itself by a blind, mindless process.

I happen to agree with you that the human body is not an accident though. It is a result of fine tuning over many generations of adapting to the environment in which humans live.

So, we have been going back and forth over fine tuning just for you to say that you agree in fine tuning?? So, if our brain controls our internal organs, what evolved first, the brain, or the organs??

You haven't defined what you mean by 'having a purpose' yet.
As I understand the word purpose something can only have a purpose if it was produced by some intelligent mind with a purpose in mind. That is if an object has a purpose then it was designed.
So you are correct that I can't name anything that has a purpose (as I understand the word) behind it that wasn't the product of an intelligent mind.

I've already defined what purpose means.

But I don't see how that is relevant. Rats don't build string houses, but they might make a string ball that can be used for several things even if it was not designed for it.

I didn't say that they did, I said "if" they did.

Imagine a stick lying on the ground. It is just lying there, it has no purpose. If I need a walking stick I can pick it up and use it as such. If I need a weapon I can pick it up and use it as such. Many things which were not designed can be used with a purpose.

I am not talking about something that was given a purpose. I am talking about something that, the nature of its being is for a specific purpose. A stick may be used as a weapon, but the nature of a stick is not a weapon. Your heart is different, your heart has a specified purpose, to pump blood in your body. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it. Dont you see the difference??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

When? where? Which post?

All you have said is that Roger Penrose says so.
Well my dady says he is wrong

Now who isn't reading posts?? Not only did I state how he got the number, but others have already confirmed that Penrose did actually get that calculation, and even gave the reference. I love how you people are acting like this stuff is new. It is on the record.

 

[lunakilo]

I have answered this question about five times and i refuse to answer it again.

Fine, you may have answered that question in an answer to sombody elses post and I may have missed it.
Can you link to the post where you answered it?

EDIT:

I think I found it...

Purpose......is anything that has an agenda...objective...goal....target....that is purpose..our reproductive system was made for us to reproduce.....our digestive system was made for us to digest......our circulatory system was made for blood circulation....this is specified.....complexity.....how can a process that doesnt have eyes to configure....a mind to think and reason......give us these specified systems....Makes no sense whatsoever to me...

So I am reading more or less the same definition as I gave.
And this also implies that you can only talk about somthing having a purpose it it was designed with a purpose in mind.

This also means that your argument is circular.... (I AM QUOTING YOU NOW):

That is not my argument, my argument is, if something is complex with a purpose, then it is designed.

You say that something is designed if it is 'complex with a purpose', but how can it have a purpose without being designed?

So basically you are saying that if something looks complicated and solves a task well it must be designed for it.
I will claim that that is untrue.

 

[lunakilo]

Completely ignored the point I made about that rats making a "string house" out of the string. So until you respond to that, this is all I will say to this.

Maybe I just dont get your point.
Rats don't make string houses, if I came back 24 hours later and found they had made one I would seriously reconsider my view on rats.

So what is you point?

 

[lunakilo]

Now who isn't reading posts?? Not only did I state how he got the number, but others have already confirmed that Penrose did actually get that calculation, and even gave the reference. I love how you people are acting like this stuff is new. It is on the record.

I was one of those people. I do understand the basics of his calculation.
I did see the reference to a book, but I don't have his book so I can't look it up can I
I just want to know how he got the ranges for the constants. The number makes no sense unless you know how he determined the ranges of the constants.
No one has provided any information as to how he did that.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Zero evidence???? What about miracles, 101 different kinds of paranormal phenomenas, etc..

They are all hoaxes. Or hysteria. Nothing truly miraculous has ever been documented. They are all explainable.

It's all evidence for a supernatural universe. Now you may debate against the evidence but it is evidence that must be addressed. People confuse the word evidence with proof..

What evidence do you actually have? You are claiming some, but I don't see any.

From Wikipedia:

Evidence - Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

I keep hearing on RF that there is no evidence for the supernatural. This is not even debatedly wrong. It's just wrong by definition.

No it isn't. It's 100% correct. I didn't have to look up that definition, either.
Half of the time you lot assert that the supernatural will leave no trace or otherwise be undetectable by our feeble science... THEN you assert there's an overwhelming amount of evidence! It's a paradox you cannot solve. Which is it, then? Mountains of evidence all around us or nothing our feeble sciences can detect? You can only call it 'evidence' if it passes the scientific Stink Test.

 

[lunakilo]

You continue to miss the point. Any person or thing can use any object for purposeful meaning. If It snows outside, and I go out and make a snow angel, then I am using the snow for the purpose of making a snow angel. That is a completely different than the snow falling for the purpose of humans making snow angels. The snow doesnt fall with the purpose of "I will fall so that humans can make snow angels out of me". I have made this distinction already, yet you keep giving these examples that doesn't have anything to do with what I am talking about.



I do have a logical reason to make this jump. Even if I didn't know that space ships were built by humans I would have a hard time believing that it assembled itself without any guidance from an intelligent mind. You guys are using this cop out excuse "we know space shuttles were built by humans, etc". Ok, thats fine. But my point is, EVEN IF I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SPACE SHUTTLES WERE BUILT BY MAN, I still wouldn't believe that it assembled itself by a blind, mindless process.

And you are missing my point.
I would also assume that the space shuttle was built, but only because it resembles other things which I know to have been built.

I also know that some things are not built and I see no reason to assume that the human body is in the group of things that were built.

So, we have been going back and forth over fine tuning just for you to say that you agree in fine tuning?? So, if our brain controls our internal organs, what evolved first, the brain, or the organs??

Evolution is a fine tuning process.

I am not an expert on evolution, so exactly how the organs and brain came to be like they are now I don't know. But I know that animals generally have brains and organs (isn't the brain an organ?), so I assume they started out billions of years ago as not very complex things and then grow lager and more complex over many many generations.

I am not talking about something that was given a purpose. I am talking about something that, the nature of its being is for a specific purpose. A stick may be used as a weapon, but the nature of a stick is not a weapon. Your heart is different, your heart has a specified purpose, to pump blood in your body. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it. Dont you see the difference??

I see the differnece between something designed with a purpose and something not designed but usable anyway.
What makes you think your heart falls into the first category?

Evolution is a very simple process which fine tunes living organisms for the invironment they live in.
The heart probably started out as a very simple thing.
Animals with the best hearts could move faster and survived to have more ofspring that enherited their type of hearts.
This way better and better hearts vere produced by a simple unguided process.
No design needed.

 

[johnhanks]

Now who isn't reading posts?? Not only did I state how he got the number, but others have already confirmed that Penrose did actually get that calculation, and even gave the reference...

You conveniently omit the rider that having made the calculation and presented us with the puzzle of how such an absurdly improbable event could have come about, Penrose then presents us with an answer in terms of constraints on the value of the space-time curvature tensor at initial singularities. I quote:

What we appear to find is that there is a constraint

WEYL= 0​

(or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities - but not at final singularities - and this seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space.

(The Emperor's New Mind, p.446.) As I remarked before, Penrose's use of the term Creator is whimsical - he is a self-declared atheist.

What we see here is a sadly common phenomenon: a creationist who thinks he has found a scientific finding that supports his position and proceeds to trumpet it, either ignorant of or mendaciously ignoring further findings that negate that conclusion.

 

[lunakilo]

You conveniently omit the rider that having made the calculation and presented us with the puzzle of how such an absurdly improbable event could have come about, Penrose then presents us with an answer in terms of constraints on the value of the space-time curvature tensor at initial singularities. I quote:
(The Emperor's New Mind, p.446.) As I remarked before, Penrose's use of the term Creator is whimsical - he is a self-declared atheist.

What we see here is a sadly common phenomenon: a creationist who thinks he has found a scientific finding that supports his position and proceeds to trumpet it, either ignorant of or mendaciously ignoring further findings that negate that conclusion.

Thanks for that remark

It also ment I found this article which may be interseting: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/229/1/012013/pdf/1742-6596_229_1_012013.pdf

Penrose gives a quantitative form to this argument as follows: the entropy of the contents of
the past light cone of an observer now can be estimated as 1088 (this estimate from the earlier
article [1] is revised up to 10101 in [2] to take account of the large black holes now known to
exist in galactic centres); however if all the matter in this past light cone was in black holes the
entropy would rise to 10123, which is probably the maximum possible; interpreting entropy as
the logarithm of phase-space volume, this means that the actual universe lies in an unimaginably

Al least that states something about how he got the number, now I just have to figure out what it means

 

[paarsurrey]

Even if the Creator God is not physical then he must have some influence on the physical world, or else he would not be much of a god.

If This Creator God interacts with the universe on a regular basis it is possible that you could detect that and work out that Gods existence is plausible.
But if the Creator God's only action was to create the universe, and then leave it alone then it would leave no evidence for God's existece.

One true God has influence on the physical realm on regular basis; but He has maintained a balance; a believer sees Him in everything and the non-believer does not see any influence of Him in anything. One can find Him only in the ways He has told; not otherwise; hence there will always be a divide in the issue; neither side winning while claiming superiority that they have won.

Reason of itself is blind; it always needs a conjugal partner to ascertain things. For things happened in the past reason needs history or archaeology etc., for the present one needs radio, television, newspaper and for future just a conjecture.

Human eyes cannot see things without light; human ear needs a medium to hear.

Religion is not against science or knowledge; Quote just one founder of the revealed religions like Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus who spoke against science or knowledge.

In the moral and the spiritual realm; instead of experiments there are experiences, vision, revelation.

I don't think that the values of a piece of art could be assessed accurately by any physical experiments in the lab; one assesses it with one's aesthetic sense developed over a period of time.

Humans need both science and religion; like one naturally and comfortably moves with both the legs; the same way humans travel the journey of life with sciences and religion; while there could be people having blind faith in science or religion; common on both sides.

 

[George-ananda]

They are all hoaxes. Or hysteria. Nothing truly miraculous has ever been documented. They are all explainable.

What evidence do you actually have? You are claiming some, but I don't see any.

There is a large number of things for which no hoax/hysteria or materialistic explanation has been found. Let me offer you just one of many websites
www.victorzammit.com Even agnostic scientists like Carl Sagan pointed out paranormal areas requiring further investigation as no satisfactory materialistic explanation could be found.

No it isn't. It's 100% correct. I didn't have to look up that definition, either.

Your above quote was in regards to my definition of Evidence.....I used the standard english definition of the word evidence....Evidence is something claimed to support a position.....Evidence cannot always be proven to be 100% correct or 100% incorrect (for example, an eyewitnesses testimony) but it is still evidence for consideration.

Half of the time you lot assert that the supernatural will leave no trace or otherwise be undetectable by our feeble science... THEN you assert there's an overwhelming amount of evidence! It's a paradox you cannot solve. Which is it, then? Mountains of evidence all around us or nothing our feeble sciences can detect? You can only call it 'evidence' if it passes the scientific Stink Test.

Modern science only studies things tangible to the five senses and our physical instruments. But to conclude those things are the only things in the universe is a fallacy even scientists would disagree with. There are all kinds of theories about other dimensions, multi-verses, string theories, etc. that are valid areas of speculation.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as the paranormal. It's just that we have an incomplete understanding of the normal now.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There is a large number of things for which no hoax/hysteria or materialistic explanation has been found. Let me offer you just one of many websites
www.victorzammit.com Even agnostic scientists like Carl Sagan pointed out paranormal areas requiring further investigation as no satisfactory materialistic explanation could be found.

I am afraid that is not true, at all. Sagan was known for offering natural explanations for supernatural phenomena.

Your above quote was in regards to my definition of Evidence.....I used the standard english definition of the word evidence....Evidence is something claimed to support a position.....Evidence cannot always be proven to be 100% correct or 100% incorrect (for example, an eyewitnesses testimony) but it is still evidence for consideration.

If you'd like to quibble semantics all of a sudden, that's fine; but there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural, which is what teh claim was, and that's untrue. Eyewitness testimony is labeled 'evidence' at trial because it's part of the legal process and must be defined as equal to other more solid types, like paper trails and etc. But when it comes to describing the physical world, no, eyewitness testimony is essentially garbage without physical evidence to back it up. they are not the same, in much the same way a common 'theory' stands no chance against the scientific term. In point of fact, most people use the words 'evidence' and 'theory' in completely incorrect manners, especially when discussing subjects like this.

Modern science only studies things tangible to the five senses and our physical instruments. But to conclude those things are the only things in the universe is a fallacy even scientists would disagree with. There are all kinds of theories about other dimensions, multi-verses, string theories, etc. that are valid areas of speculation.

Please don't claim what scientists would say when you are dealing with a totally non-scientific concept.

The theories you mention her have evidence to back them; as I said above, a term used incorrectly by you here. If there is a theory for for example, alternate dimensions then there is evidence to support such an idea FIRST. In some cases it's only math, or the behavior of obscure particles, but that is still something tangible.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as the paranormal. It's just that we have an incomplete understanding of the normal now.

That, however, is true; but it basically shoots down your premise

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think I found it...

So I am reading more or less the same definition as I gave.
And this also implies that you can only talk about somthing having a purpose it it was designed with a purpose in mind.

This also means that your argument is circular....

I don't see how it is circular.

(I AM QUOTING YOU NOW):

You say that something is designed if it is 'complex with a purpose', but how can it have a purpose without being designed?

That is why I tried to distinguish the two concepts of design. If you look in a river or any body of water, and you see zig zag ripples, you could say "look at the design". But there is no purpose for the ripples, it is just something that occurs based on the motion of the ocean This is not the concept that I argue the case of I.D. What I am saying is, if you look inside the hood of a car, you see all kind of distinct parts. Each part performs a specified function for the car. No one argues this. Now compare this to looking inside a human body, cut the stomach open, and you will see all kind of distinct parts, with each part serving as a specied function for the body as a whole (holy crap, I said the same thing for both the car and the human, notice that???). Now i predict you will say "but we know cars are a product of I.D, but we dont know that about the human body".....how do you know? Because you are around to see a car being designed?? Thats funny, you weren't around when this voo doo science was taking place with evolution, and yet you believe that. Its a double standard.

So basically you are saying that if something looks complicated and solves a task well it must be designed for it.
I will claim that that is untrue.

I am happy you said this. Do me a favor, name something that has a specified task, to perform a specified function, that you KNOW was not a result of intelligent design. I will wait.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Maybe I just dont get your point.
Rats don't make string houses, if I came back 24 hours later and found they had made one I would seriously reconsider my view on rats.

So what is you point?

Why cat rats make string houses?? Because they dont have the intellectual capacity to do so? But yet you believe in a an evolutionary process that also doesn't have a mind, and you think that this process was able to do these amazing things with no intellectual capacity whatsoever. You have a hard time believing that rat can make a string house, but yet you believe that nature, a mindless, blind entity, was out there making universes with 10:10(123) precision, and it was also out there making human beings with complex systems within it, like circulatory systems, digestive system, nervous system, immune system, reproductive system, etc. My goodness. I would take my chances on a rats building string houses.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And you are missing my point.
I would also assume that the space shuttle was built, but only because it resembles other things which I know to have been built.

This is exactly why I first used the example of "if you lived 3,000 years ago", so you wouldnt be able to say "I would know because it resembles other things which I know have been built". Guess what, 3,000 years ago, the space ship of today wouldnt have resembled ANYTHING. If you are honest with yourself, you will draw the conclusion that even if you were alive at that time, and you saw what we now call a space ship, you would still conclude intelligent design, even if you never saw one before.

I also know that some things are not built and I see no reason to assume that the human body is in the group of things that were built.

Of course not, because if you believe it was built, this would give supernatural implications, so we must avoid this at all cost.

Evolution is a fine tuning process.

Of course it isn't

I am not an expert on evolution, so exactly how the organs and brain came to be like they are now I don't know. But I know that animals generally have brains and organs (isn't the brain an organ?), so I assume they started out billions of years ago as not very complex things and then grow lager and more complex over many many generations.

I am trying to figure out how can you get a brain from something that doesn't have a brain. Also, you did the typical thing evolutionists do, try to give the "billions of years" thing, as if that solves the problem. Oh yeah, billions of years ago, when no one was around to see it happen, it happned. No one has ever saw it since, but billions of years ago, it occured. Voo Doo science.

I see the differnece between something designed with a purpose and something not designed but usable anyway.
What makes you think your heart falls into the first category?

It is more than usable, it is so usable that we would die without it. So if we need blood to live, what were we using before we evovled to have blood?? If we evovled eyes, how were we moving around before we evovled eyes. If we evovled a reproductive system, how were we reproducing with the opposite sex before we evovled a reproductive system (not to mention the fact that no one has ever been able to provide an adequate answer as to how/why the male evovled the penis, which just happen to be compatible with the females vagina, which is absurd in all aspects). I know you may not be well rounded on the subject of evolution, and neither am I, these are questions I want to ask any evolutionist or biologist.

Evolution is a very simple process which fine tunes living organisms for the invironment they live in.

They have to be fine funed before they even get to the point where they reach an enviorment. Living orgasms have to have the right celluar make-up to adapt to anything, and this goes back to abiogensis, which there currently is no answer for at the moment, and I dont think ever will.

The heart probably started out as a very simple thing.

You have to provide the answer of how it started out in the first place. "It probably started out"....how did it get there to start anything???

Animals with the best hearts could move faster and survived to have more ofspring that enherited their type of hearts.
This way better and better hearts vere produced by a simple unguided process.
No design needed.

You are saying "no design needed" before you provided a naturalistic explanation of how every thing started, and before you do that I dont see how you can logically say that no design was needed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You conveniently omit the rider that having made the calculation and presented us with the puzzle of how such an absurdly improbable event could have come about, Penrose then presents us with an answer in terms of constraints on the value of the space-time curvature tensor at initial singularities. I quote:
(The Emperor's New Mind, p.446.) As I remarked before, Penrose's use of the term Creator is whimsical - he is a self-declared atheist.

What we see here is a sadly common phenomenon: a creationist who thinks he has found a scientific finding that supports his position and proceeds to trumpet it, either ignorant of or mendaciously ignoring further findings that negate that conclusion.

Ummm...huh??

 

[lunakilo]

I don't see how it is circular.



That is why I tried to distinguish the two concepts of design. If you look in a river or any body of water, and you see zig zag ripples, you could say "look at the design". But there is no purpose for the ripples, it is just something that occurs based on the motion of the ocean This is not the concept that I argue the case of I.D. What I am saying is, if you look inside the hood of a car, you see all kind of distinct parts. Each part performs a specified function for the car. No one argues this. Now compare this to looking inside a human body, cut the stomach open, and you will see all kind of distinct parts, with each part serving as a specied function for the body as a whole (holy crap, I said the same thing for both the car and the human, notice that???). Now i predict you will say "but we know cars are a product of I.D, but we dont know that about the human body".....how do you know? Because you are around to see a car being designed?? Thats funny, you weren't around when this voo doo science was taking place with evolution, and yet you believe that. Its a double standard.



I am happy you said this. Do me a favor, name something that has a specified task, to perform a specified function, that you KNOW was not a result of intelligent design. I will wait.

That was my point <sigh!>

As I said:

You say that something is designed if it is 'complex with a purpose', but how can it have a purpose without being designed?

The way you use the word purpose it automatically equals design.
If something has a specified task, it has a purpose, if it has a purpose some mind must have given it a purpose/specified task, therefore it must be designed.
So obviously I cannot name something I know to have a specified task and was not designed.

The flaw in your argument is how do you know if something has a purpose or not?
You say the heart has a purpose, therefor it was designed.
I say the heart doesn't have a purpose ( As I said earlier some things can solve tasks they were not designed to solve), therefore no design needed.

If it is not true that all things which have a purpose are designed then can you please name something which HAS A PURPOSE but was NOT DESIGNED?

 

[lunakilo]

Why cat rats make string houses?? Because they dont have the intellectual capacity to do so? But yet you believe in a an evolutionary process that also doesn't have a mind, and you think that this process was able to do these amazing things with no intellectual capacity whatsoever. You have a hard time believing that rat can make a string house, but yet you believe that nature, a mindless, blind entity, was out there making universes with 10:10(123) precision, and it was also out there making human beings with complex systems within it, like circulatory systems, digestive system, nervous system, immune system, reproductive system, etc. My goodness. I would take my chances on a rats building string houses.

So, now we are into discussing if evolution happens or not.
Many threads exist covering that topic, and I don't think getting into it here will convience anybody of anything, so I will just skip that part.

Something puzzles me though...

You are very fond of the standard cosmological model and you like to quote physisists like Roger Penrose.
You use science and scientific results again and again to support your claim that some super natural being created the universe.
So you are ok with the universe being 13.<something> billion years old.
You are ok with the fact that you don't know how Roger Penrose calculated that big number you like so much, it enough for you that he is an expert in his field.

But when it comes to the standard model of how life on Earth came to be as it is you evne though a lot of smart people who are experts in their fields say it is true.
This standard model includes evolution as the way life has changed over time.
But even though this is the standard model which has come about via the scientific method which you seem to like you reject it.

You seem to believe that for example the human heart was created with the purpose of pumping blod around the human body so that humans don't die.
If it is true that humans were designed, then that must mean that humans were created pretty much as they are now by a creator at some point in the past (I am not sure when you believe this happened), and since the creator is the best designer ever, humans will probably stay true to this design in the future and not change.

So:
1) Both standard models repersent the best explanations science has to offer, so why do you accept one standard model and reject another?
2) The universe is not static. It has changed a lot over time. Don't you find it odd that the universe changes, but humans are static?

 

[lunakilo]

This is exactly why I first used the example of "if you lived 3,000 years ago", so you wouldnt be able to say "I would know because it resembles other things which I know have been built". Guess what, 3,000 years ago, the space ship of today wouldnt have resembled ANYTHING. If you are honest with yourself, you will draw the conclusion that even if you were alive at that time, and you saw what we now call a space ship, you would still conclude intelligent design, even if you never saw one before.



Of course not, because if you believe it was built, this would give supernatural implications, so we must avoid this at all cost.



Of course it isn't



I am trying to figure out how can you get a brain from something that doesn't have a brain. Also, you did the typical thing evolutionists do, try to give the "billions of years" thing, as if that solves the problem. Oh yeah, billions of years ago, when no one was around to see it happen, it happned. No one has ever saw it since, but billions of years ago, it occured. Voo Doo science.



It is more than usable, it is so usable that we would die without it. So if we need blood to live, what were we using before we evovled to have blood?? If we evovled eyes, how were we moving around before we evovled eyes. If we evovled a reproductive system, how were we reproducing with the opposite sex before we evovled a reproductive system (not to mention the fact that no one has ever been able to provide an adequate answer as to how/why the male evovled the penis, which just happen to be compatible with the females vagina, which is absurd in all aspects). I know you may not be well rounded on the subject of evolution, and neither am I, these are questions I want to ask any evolutionist or biologist.



They have to be fine funed before they even get to the point where they reach an enviorment. Living orgasms have to have the right celluar make-up to adapt to anything, and this goes back to abiogensis, which there currently is no answer for at the moment, and I dont think ever will.



You have to provide the answer of how it started out in the first place. "It probably started out"....how did it get there to start anything???



You are saying "no design needed" before you provided a naturalistic explanation of how every thing started, and before you do that I dont see how you can logically say that no design was needed.

As I said in the previous post we are now discussing evolution versus creationism and there are plenty of threasd around about that.

I think this thread is far enough off track as it is.
If you want to discuss it further start a new thread (and link to it so I can find it). I will be happy to discuss it with you there why I think evolution makes sence.