Is there a God?

[Warren Clark]

My comment was not purposed to comment on which or what groups are more reliable concerning biological processes 2 billion years ago. It was a response to a strange claim concerning the merits of scientific evidence verses textual evidence with some strange completely false hyperbole thrown in for effect.



This is what I believe concerning scientific biological claims.

1. Scientists can't make life even when optimal circumstances are generated in a lab.
2. Spontaneous developement of life violates their own law of abiogenesis.
3. 95% of evolutionary claims violate their own scientific method.
4. Anything older than somewhere around 10,000 years is reasoned/evidenced based guessing and after maybe a few million turns into pure fantasy with some biological principles thrown in for effect.
5. My problems with spontaneous life formation and evolution as the sole force in biology that produces change is scientific not theologic.
6. I do not mind all the theories in the world but do not call them facts nor rigorus science.
7. I do not think the fossil record allows for evolution alone.
8. All major biological family or species groups appear suddenly (most at relatively the same time) and without developement.
9. The oldest eye known was also teh most complex.
10. There is no way around thermodynamics until a system exists of such extreme complexity that it can turn energy into complexity.
11. "And not only do they have thousands of years of experiment" Nope.

Who is it that I mentioned that have a four year old understanding of biology. Christians make up a great portion of the men who began the fields of science themselves. Even Francis Collins for Pete's sake. I don't know how you got an argument about biology from my comments. By the way have I responded to all your posts, I thought I lost you in the shuffle at some point?

Abiogenisis is not saying that things went from energy to complex subjects. It just says throuh a pool of chemicals and the perfect conditions a super simple single celled organism that would be nothing like we know today could've sprung to start what we call life today.

There is outright evidence we see today such as the rapid evolution of viruses. Do you think a new strain of the cold just pops out of thin air every year? No, the one strain adapts and evolves.

Evolution is a core to medical science, otherwise we wouldn't have vaccines or flushots available to kill the new strains of viruses.

Actually thanks to Carbon-Dating we have an accurate way to tell how many years ago something has died. Thats why we can say Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

 

[1robin]

1. I know what the scientific method is. However if you test your hypothesis 100 times and only 20 of the outcomes provided positive results, you must change your hypothesis. If I throw a ball in the air on earth, there is a 99.9% chance that it will fall back down. If I throw a ball in a place where there is 0% percent chance that the ball will fall back down. That is probability.

If you have something signed by someone and you can match the Signature to the person of interest its more likely to be authentic. I believe most of our findings are accurately documented as authentic artifacts of history. I wouldn't doubt if artifacts were found to be dated back when by a scholar. But I wouldn't trust what a text has to say just because it says it. A tomb may truthfully hold said person's body, but no one actually believes the curses in the mummy's tombs were real (Except for your elect few fools). So why should we believe that the Bible is any more accurate?

If you know the scientific method then you should realize most of science doesn't meet it. No dinosaurs are here to test about whether they turn into birds. No creature is crawling out of the surf and gaining lungs. Heck scientists using optimum conditions can't make life in a lab. I have no problem with the theories. It is just that science is claimed to be almighty when most of it is no more reliable than Biblical claims (theories), many times far less. Yet the Bible is dismissed because it is not empirical proof and science hailed as sacred when it can't provide empirical proof as well. I have no problem with science. I have a problem with double standards, the deification of what little knowledge we have, and the dismissal of the most reliable book in ancient history bar none.

2. Sorry you’re not able to watch videos on your DOD. But just because it was found on YouTube doesn't mean its not a viable source. A decent video usually has its sources listed somewhere findable, be it at the end of the video or the info box.

That is not exactly what I said.

3. A lot of scientists have started out as theists and lost the binding of their religion. Scientific discovery does that. And its mislead that all scientists that start their fields as theists. I'd like to know where you got that information, because it is false

Many people have had their faith strengthened or gained because of science. Even the guy who decoded DNA is a Christian. There is no argument that science has harmed God. Most of the actual fields of science were begun by Christians.

4. I was just referencing the one article on the IQ/Religiousness. There are many other studies done that aren't as politically correct as that one... So I was just being nice... The Vatican is like you said filled with rich people. I find it funny how Jesus was upset that the church became not of God but greed and glamour and that’s exactly what became of The Vatican...

Finally something I can agree with. The Vatican is not what God intended. However it does prove you "religion as a whole" stats which are irrelevant do not work when Christians alone are examined and as that is what I am debating is the far more relevant issue. Christian societies are the most successful and intellectual in human history.

5. Of course, because my calling religious people "stupid" (relative to your brightest minds) you are offended. In your mind you think you are taking the high road by just not responding. But just think about it.

Creationists had this thing where they tried to show how many Christian scientists there were that didn't believe in evolution.
There was a tongue-n-cheek project done called the Steve Project. The goal was to compare how many Christian scientists there were compared to the number of scientists named Steve (which make up only 1% of all the scientists). Turns out there are only a few hundred Christian scientists compared to a couple thousand named Steve.
So if more than 99% of the well trained scientists agree on something why shouldn't be accepted as valuable theory?

I was not offended, your claims were just wrong. As you guys always do you make false accusations of fallacy when I use numbers to indicate a sufficiency of evidence for faith (which is not a fallacy), then you turn around and use numbers as proof (which is a fallacy). I hate the double standards and hypocrisy.

 

[1robin]

Abiogenisis is not saying that things went from energy to complex subjects.

That is why I never said it did. Abiogenesis says that life only comes from life and is a law with no known exceptions. The entire food industry is based on it. Yet if is needed to be circumvented by evolutionists it they simply toss out their own law as well as the scientific method for no more reason than convenience and that is called science. That requires more faith than God does.

It just says throuh a pool of chemicals and the perfect conditions a super simple single celled organism that would be nothing like we know today could've sprung to start what we call life today.

No it does not. It says that ONLY life can produce life.

There is outright evidence we see today such as the rapid evolution of viruses. Do you think a new strain of the cold just pops out of thin air every year? No, the one strain adapts and evolves.

You are not all that familiar with evolution are you? Changes in a virus have nothing what so ever to do with abiogenesis. What does happen is easier seen in bugs. If a field is sprayed and 50 out of the 2 million insects have a gene already present that makes them immune to the insecticide then they are the only ones that survive. They then breed an entire population that is resistant. No new genetics are produced, no increase in complexity is created, and no new species exist yet scientists yell proof of evolution from the house tops and get millions in grants. I do believe as the Bible says that things change after their kind. I do not believe and there is not a single shred of evidence that a species ever becomes another species nor that life came from chance. Even genetic mutation which produces what change we see is 99.99999999999% lethal.

Evolution is a core to medical science, otherwise we wouldn't have vaccines or flushots available to kill the new strains of viruses.

No it is not. Genetics are all that is necessary for that. Evolution is a small subset of genetics and could be thrown out and the same science still done. No doctor even thinks for a moment about urangutan's when doing heart surgery.

Actually thanks to Carbon-Dating we have an accurate way to tell how many years ago something has died. Thats why we can say Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Please do some research before you post next time. Dinosaur bones have millions of years ago lost all remaining carbon. There is not a single dinosaur bone that has been dated using carbon dating. I do not know if strontium argon, or potassium iodide can be used but carbon dating can't be. Dinosaurs are dated using index fossils which leads to circular reasoning but that is another issue. Carbon dating is also based on faith that the current atmospheric carbon levels have always been the same. That is quite a stretch. What does what years dinosaurs lived have to do with any thing any way? I never mentioned it.

 

[Warren Clark]

If you know the scientific method then you should realize most of science doesn't meet it. No dinosaurs are here to test about whether they turn into birds. No creature is crawling out of the surf and gaining lungs. Heck scientists using optimum conditions can't make life in a lab. I have no problem with the theories. It is just that science is claimed to be almighty when most of it is no more reliable than Biblical claims (theories), many times far less. Yet the Bible is dismissed because it is not empirical proof and science hailed as sacred when it can't provide empirical proof as well. I have no problem with science. I have a problem with double standards, the deification of what little knowledge we have, and the dismissal of the most reliable book in ancient history bar none.

1. No one said Dinosaurs turned into birds.
2. No one said anything climbed out of the water and gained a lung...

You really need to read up on evolution a little more to get a clear idea of what you are talking about. Birds derived from an early ancestor that originally derived from the same ancestors as some dinosaurs.
Just like we didn't evolve from monkeys/apes but a common ancestor.

3. Abiogenesis doesn't have a happy chance at being purposefully recreated. recreating our starting point is like taking every puzzle in the world dumping them in a giant box and saying "now put together the first puzzle ever created". Its not likely going to happen. At least not in our lifetime.

3.b. However, it is pretty darn amazing to even be able to be at this point in science to even consider recreating our origin. We are doing things that only 40 years from now was science fiction. Have you realized that movies from the 80's showed the year 2022 to have us flying to another planet...
We are getting close to that point. And if it weren't for the scientific method we wouldn't have our successes.
And its no question, the scientific method falsifies more claims than it proves, but that's the beauty of the system.
You might not understand how we got evolution through scientific process, but that only means you have yet to read the right material.
Trust me, the text books are vague and boring.
People like Richard Dawkins and even the some shows on the science channel can show exactly what the process of evolution was like and how we got it through the scientific method.

5. As for the bible, nothing can convince me that it has any merit compared to science...

Genesis 6:14-15 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. Noah's ark is 450 feet long. The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge, was able to construct a wooden ship longer than any that has been built since?
But not only was the ark too big to be seaworthy, it was far too small to be able to contain the earth's millions of plant and animal species.

(that is one example of countless others)

That is not exactly what I said.

No, you made a snide comment saying you don't do your research on you tube. As if it weren't a viable resource...

Many people have had their faith strengthened or gained because of science. Even the guy who decoded DNA is a Christian. There is no argument that science has harmed God. Most of the actual fields of science were begun by Christians.

Please help me here, because I've tried researching this claim and all I got was the maximum of 28 scientists with a majority of them not being Christian at all. Like Albert Einstein, he was a Pantheist...
And then I tried looking up others and almost all of them were agnostic...
So now I am just confused...
This is like the false claim where Darwin had a death bed conversion.

Finally something I can agree with. The Vatican is not what God intended. However it does prove you "religion as a whole" stats which are irrelevant do not work when Christians alone are examined and as that is what I am debating is the far more relevant issue. Christian societies are the most successful and intellectual in human history.

Well, I would not go as far as saying they are the most successful.
Rome was a little more civil than America is at the very moment.

I was not offended, your claims were just wrong. As you guys always do you make false accusations of fallacy when I use numbers to indicate a sufficiency of evidence for faith (which is not a fallacy), then you turn around and use numbers as proof (which is a fallacy). I hate the double standards and hypocrisy.

I am confused by this numbers for what?
I haven't used anything but probability when it comes to numbers.
And I haven't made a false accusation.
I made a claim and gave supporting evidence...

 

[1robin]

1. No one said Dinosaurs turned into birds.
2. No one said anything climbed out of the water and gained a lung...

You have argued in favor of both evolution and the scientific method. I was pointing out these false claims that do not meet that method or standard. I was also pointing out that Biblical truths are based on more reliable information than these scientific ones. Double standards.

You really need to read up on evolution a little more to get a clear idea of what you are talking about. Birds derived from an early ancestor that originally derived from the same ancestors as some dinosaurs.
Just like we didn't evolve from monkeys/apes but a common ancestor.

That was not the point, and in fact dinosaurs like the raptors are now days drawn with feathers because they say that was one step on the way to becoming birds. I have even seen T-rex with feathers. Even if you were right that is not the point. It is that claims are made and called science that do not pass the scientific method however they are still called facts many times. Yet the Bible which contains eye witness testimony and is deemed reliable by world experts and is only 3000yrs old instead of 500 million it is rejected. Double standards.

3. Abiogenesis doesn't have a happy chance at being purposefully recreated. recreating our starting point is like taking every puzzle in the world dumping them in a giant box and saying "now put together the first puzzle ever created". Its not likely going to happen. At least not in our lifetime.

I do not care how you spin it there is not a single exception known. Life only comes from life. As for your claim scientists have indeed reproduced what they said the early earth atmoshpere and conditions were. They failed. Instead of concluding they were wrong they instead started adjusting things to produced the most favorable parameters they could think of. Still failed. Yet they still claim it happened. Not because evidence suggests it but because they have predetermined positions based on preference that will not allow the implications of what we actually know to stand.

3.b. However, it is pretty darn amazing to even be able to be at this point in science to even consider recreating our origin. We are doing things that only 40 years from now was science fiction

It is still unsuccessful science fiction. At least a while back they didn't claim what is still unproven was fact. In some ways we are further back than we started.

Have you realized that movies from the 80's showed the year 2022 to have us flying to another planet...
We are getting close to that point. And if it weren't for the scientific method we wouldn't have our successes.

So science works on occasion there fore any thing a scientist says is true and God does not exist. Strange thought process. I am not against science, I am against science being viewed as omnipotent and calling things science that are in fact faith.

And its no question, the scientific method falsifies more claims than it proves, but that's the beauty of the system.

I agree and it is an inescapable conclusion then that the vast majority of scientific claims are false. Only a few pan out and most can't even be tested. Given this fact then why would I assume that they have defied the odds over and over and are right about macro-evolution, abiogenesis, the history of the universe, or God. Chances are very high that they are wrong and we can't even test it to find out yet people believe their claims anyway.

You might not understand how we got evolution through scientific process, but that only means you have yet to read the right material.

I know how evolution arose. It was popular by an angry failed seminary student with almsot zero scientific credentials. He derived it through logical deduction. Once the idea (an idea by the way which gratified the ant God crowd) became rooted in science it has since been added to by some very good, some pure guess, and some very bad science. The fact that the only thing we can test is microevolution and that is consistent with the Bible means that it is irrelevant anyway in a discussion about God.

Trust me, the text books are vague and boring.
People like Richard Dawkins and even the some shows on the science channel can show exactly what the process of evolution was like and how we got it through the scientific method.

I would not know about books but I would bet a lot that I have seen Dawkins debate more than you have by far. I think I have seen them all even his conversation with Flew and other. He is a good scientist but should stay in the lab. However I have seen him trounced and stumped many times. A thousand Dawkins will not make macro evolution any more reliable and his take on the eye is a deplorable fantasy. What does any of this have to do with God.

5. As for the bible, nothing can convince me that it has any merit compared to science...

This is exactly my point. I am not debating against evidence, historicity, science, or reason. I am debating against a preference. You start the discussion recommitted to believing the Bible is false. I have noticed you have only made generalized assertions and never actually given an example where it is in fact wrong. This is absolutely typical of most non believers and the more educated the less reason comes into play for some reason.

HYPERLINK "http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/6.html" \l "14" \t "_blank" Genesis 6:14-15HYPERLINK "http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/6.html" \l "14" \t "_blank" Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. Noah's ark is 450 feet long. The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge, was able to construct a wooden ship longer than any that has been built since?
But not only was the ark too big to be seaworthy, it was far too small to be able to contain the earth's millions of plant and animal species.

 

[1robin]

No wonder you have not posted any examples. Where to start:
1. He did not carry plants, nor any creatures that did not breathe through nostrils.
2. Many Christians do not believe this is a literal story (I have no position). They say it is an allegory.
3. Regardless many studies including one by Dr Morris concluded it could have easily carried what he was required to and had space left over. It's volume was equivalent to hundreds of rail road cars.
4. There have been many wooden ships over 300 ft long. Both the ThalamegosHYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres/oTessarakonteres"Tessarakonteres are very old wooden Greek ships and were over that, Noah's ark was only 30ft longer. In fact some oriental ships were reputed to be over 500ft.
5. The reason that they had to be pumped out occasionally was that they sailed rough seas for years. The majority of the water washed over the seas in high waves. (by the way I am an amateur military historian and a 9yr navy veteran.)
6. Noah's ark only drifted in calm seas for a few weeks.
7. Now here is the trump card. No matter what men could or could not do I think a God that created the universe can build a ship that will float for a short time. You are making that classic error of assuming that supernatural events do not happen and then evaluating God. That makes no sense and is a waste of time.
8. I would rather debate far later things as they are more substantially identified as literal or symbolic and most have written records that verify them. The Bible has 25,000 plus. If it is as flawed as you prefer it to be then you should be able to find hundreds in a far more historically attested time frame. Good luck I have yet to see one and I have been challenged by hundreds. In fact nothing has boosted my faith than researching and finding out over and over how the Bible was right and it's critics wrong every time.

(that is one example of countless others)

No it isn't and no there aren't.

Please help me here, because I've tried researching this claim and all I got was the maximum of 28 scientists with a majority of them not being Christian at all. Like Albert Einstein, he was a Pantheist...

And then I tried looking up others and almost all of them were agnostic...
So now I am just confused...
This is like the false claim where Darwin had a death bed conversion.

You bet:
http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm
http://www.godempowersyou.com/documentation/VisualAides/Science/ScienceProvesGodofHolyBible/100%20Scientists%20Who%20Shaped%20World%20History.pdf
Here is a book on them: 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
Here is one of my favorites that completely destroy any idea of violations of abiogenesis:
DR. ARTHUR E. WILDER-SMITH
An honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates, the late Dr. Wilder-Smith held many distinguished positions. A former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).
Here are his credentials:
 Chemist
 Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
 Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
 D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
 F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry)
 Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
 Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
 Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
 Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
 NATO three-star general
 Lecturer
 Deceased
 Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film/video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be (shown widely throughout North America, Australia, and televised nationally in South Africa, Russia, and throughout the former Soviet Union).
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/wilder-smith-ae.html
When that guys speaks only a fool would dismiss it.

Well, I would not go as far as saying they are the most successful.
Rome was a little more civil than America is at the very moment.

Even if that were true it would not be true in the 40's and 50's before the liberals ran God out of schools and the government and Satan filled the vacuum. In fact you can look at graphs that show teen pregnancy, school violence, and teen drug use start spiking in the years immediately following kicking God out of schools.

 

[dantech]

No wonder you have not posted any examples. Where to start:
1. He did not carry plants, nor any creatures that did not breathe through nostrils.
2. Many Christians do not believe this is a literal story (I have no position). They say it is an allegory.
3. Regardless many studies including one by Dr Morris concluded it could have easily carried what he was required to and had space left over. It's volume was equivalent to hundreds of rail road cars.
4. There have been many wooden ships over 300 ft long. Both the ThalamegosHYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres/oTessarakonteres"Tessarakonteres are very old wooden Greek ships and were over that, Noah's ark was only 30ft longer. In fact some oriental ships were reputed to be over 500ft.
5. The reason that they had to be pumped out occasionally was that they sailed rough seas for years. The majority of the water washed over the seas in high waves. (by the way I am an amateur military historian and a 9yr navy veteran.)
6. Noah's ark only drifted in calm seas for a few weeks.
7. Now here is the trump card. No matter what men could or could not do I think a God that created the universe can build a ship that will float for a short time. You are making that classic error of assuming that supernatural events do not happen and then evaluating God. That makes no sense and is a waste of time.
8. I would rather debate far later things as they are more substantially identified as literal or symbolic and most have written records that verify them. The Bible has 25,000 plus. If it is as flawed as you prefer it to be then you should be able to find hundreds in a far more historically attested time frame. Good luck I have yet to see one and I have been challenged by hundreds. In fact nothing has boosted my faith than researching and finding out over and over how the Bible was right and it's critics wrong every time.
No it isn't and no there aren't.
You bet:
http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm
http://www.godempowersyou.com/documentation/VisualAides/Science/ScienceProvesGodofHolyBible/100%20Scientists%20Who%20Shaped%20World%20History.pdf
Here is a book on them: 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
Here is one of my favorites that completely destroy any idea of violations of abiogenesis:
DR. ARTHUR E. WILDER-SMITH
An honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates, the late Dr. Wilder-Smith held many distinguished positions. A former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).
Here are his credentials:
 Chemist
 Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
 Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
 D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
 F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry)
 Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
 Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
 Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
 Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
 NATO three-star general
 Lecturer
 Deceased
 Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film/video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be (shown widely throughout North America, Australia, and televised nationally in South Africa, Russia, and throughout the former Soviet Union).
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/wilder-smith-ae.html
When that guys speaks only a fool would dismiss it.

Even if that were true it would not be true in the 40's and 50's before the liberals ran God out of schools and the government and Satan filled the vacuum. In fact you can look at graphs that show teen pregnancy, school violence, and teen drug use start spiking in the years immediately following kicking God out of schools.

I am a believer, so this might look bias, but I tried reading through the last few posts as objectively as I could, and this guy is just winning the debate outright in every argument you guys are having

 

[PolyHedral]

My comment was not purposed to comment on which or what groups are more reliable concerning biological processes 2 billion years ago. It was a response to a strange claim concerning the merits of scientific evidence verses textual evidence with some strange completely false hyperbole thrown in for effect.


This is what I believe concerning scientific biological claims.

1. Scientists can't make life even when optimal circumstances are generated in a lab.

...So? We can't do it, therefore it cannot be done? What sort of logic is that?

Spontaneous developement of life violates their own law of abiogenesis.

...What? Abiotic creation of life violates the "law" (which isn't one) of abiogenesis?

95% of evolutionary claims violate their own scientific method.

Expand.

Anything older than somewhere around 10,000 years is reasoned/evidenced based guessing and after maybe a few million turns into pure fantasy with some biological principles thrown in for effect.

I was not aware that radioisotope dating was "pure fantasy." I imagine that you could find the actual margins of error in most archaeology papers. IIRC, they're not much larger than 10% or so.

My problems with spontaneous life formation and evolution as the sole force in biology that produces change is scientific not theologic.

See if you can find a friendly biology professor. I'm sure they will be answer your questions.

I do not mind all the theories in the world but do not call them facts nor rigorus science.

The principle of evolution is better understood than that of gravity.

I do not think the fossil record allows for evolution alone.

Again, ask the biology professor. However, if your reasons for thinking this are outlined below, you might as well not waste your time.

All major biological family or species groups appear suddenly (most at relatively the same time) and without developement.

Are you aware that "suddenly" in this context refers to anything shorter than 10 million years or so? Entire species appearing in that time is quite expected - after all, we've been only around for 1% of that time.

The oldest eye known was also teh most complex.

[Citation needed]

There is no way around thermodynamics until a system exists of such extreme complexity that it can turn energy into complexity.

Life does not break thermodynamics - life is not a closed system.

"And not only do they have thousands of years of experiment" Nope.

What we'd think of as biology appears in the 9th century AD - 1100 years ago.

Who is it that I mentioned that have a four year old understanding of biology. Christians make up a great portion of the men who began the fields of science themselves. Even Francis Collins for Pete's sake. I don't know how you got an argument about biology from my comments. By the way have I responded to all your posts, I thought I lost you in the shuffle at some point?

I would have far more faith in what is contained in a battle report from General Lee or even a OT text from 3ooo yers ago than any fantasy that does not meet the scientific method concerning what crawled out of the mud 2 billion years ago.

The authors of the Old Testament had a general knowledge of biology akin to that of a modern 4 year old - and that's being optimistic. They have none, or perhaps even negative credibility in biology - as opposed to people who have lifetimes worth of evidence and expertise.

 

[Warren Clark]

No wonder you have not posted any examples. Where to start:
1. He did not carry plants, nor any creatures that did not breathe through nostrils.
2. Many Christians do not believe this is a literal story (I have no position). They say it is an allegory.
3. Regardless many studies including one by Dr Morris concluded it could have easily carried what he was required to and had space left over. It's volume was equivalent to hundreds of rail road cars.
4. There have been many wooden ships over 300 ft long. Both the ThalamegosHYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres/oTessarakonteres"Tessarakonteres are very old wooden Greek ships and were over that, Noah's ark was only 30ft longer. In fact some oriental ships were reputed to be over 500ft.
5. The reason that they had to be pumped out occasionally was that they sailed rough seas for years. The majority of the water washed over the seas in high waves. (by the way I am an amateur military historian and a 9yr navy veteran.)
6. Noah's ark only drifted in calm seas for a few weeks.
7. Now here is the trump card. No matter what men could or could not do I think a God that created the universe can build a ship that will float for a short time. You are making that classic error of assuming that supernatural events do not happen and then evaluating God. That makes no sense and is a waste of time.
8. I would rather debate far later things as they are more substantially identified as literal or symbolic and most have written records that verify them. The Bible has 25,000 plus. If it is as flawed as you prefer it to be then you should be able to find hundreds in a far more historically attested time frame. Good luck I have yet to see one and I have been challenged by hundreds. In fact nothing has boosted my faith than researching and finding out over and over how the Bible was right and it's critics wrong every time.
No it isn't and no there aren't.
You bet:
http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm
http://www.godempowersyou.com/documentation/VisualAides/Science/ScienceProvesGodofHolyBible/100%20Scientists%20Who%20Shaped%20World%20History.pdf
Here is a book on them: 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
Here is one of my favorites that completely destroy any idea of violations of abiogenesis:
DR. ARTHUR E. WILDER-SMITH
An honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates, the late Dr. Wilder-Smith held many distinguished positions. A former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).
Here are his credentials:
 Chemist
 Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
 Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
 D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
 F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry)
 Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
 Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
 Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
 Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
 NATO three-star general
 Lecturer
 Deceased
 Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film/video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be (shown widely throughout North America, Australia, and televised nationally in South Africa, Russia, and throughout the former Soviet Union).
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/wilder-smith-ae.html
When that guys speaks only a fool would dismiss it.

Even if that were true it would not be true in the 40's and 50's before the liberals ran God out of schools and the government and Satan filled the vacuum. In fact you can look at graphs that show teen pregnancy, school violence, and teen drug use start spiking in the years immediately following kicking God out of schools.

Sorry its been a bit since I've been to a computer to add to the discussion. As soon as I get more time I will be happy to answer in full detail.

Its quite a leap to say that because God isn't in schools, satan has entered.
Its the parents responsibilty to teach their kids about sex. Most parents fail at bringing up well behaved children.
That being said, all the atheists or non-religious parents I know personally have kids that are not pregnant and taking college courses in highschool.
There were a few of my friends from church that got pregnant at 16 with guys that went to their church and went to a private school.
So from my own experience, it wasn't God that kept kids from getting prego.
What ever happened to taking responsibilty for the way you raise your kids?
If you spoil them and give them a cell phone at age 11then no doubt will they turn out rotten.

 

[MD]

Its quite a leap to say that because God isn't in schools, satan has entered.
Its the parents responsibilty to teach their kids about sex. Most parents fail at bringing up well behaved children.
That being said, all the atheists or non-religious parents I know personally have kids that are not pregnant and taking college courses in highschool.
There were a few of my friends from church that got pregnant at 16 with guys that went to their church and went to a private school.
So from my own experience, it wasn't God that kept kids from getting prego.
What ever happened to taking responsibilty for the way you raise your kids?
If you spoil them and give them a cell phone at age 11then no doubt will they turn out rotten.

:clap

 

[1robin]

...So? We can't do it, therefore it cannot be done? What sort of logic is that?

The sort of logic I never mentioned. Please post the statement that I said because scientists can't make life there for it is impossible. However, there is not a single example of life being formed by scientists in optimal conditions, there is no known violation of abiogenisis, thermodynamics suggest it is impossible (se chemical evolution), and even secular scientists say one cell forming on it's own has the same probability of selecting a single atom out of the universe at random. Not to mention that it would have to arrive on the scene with a perfectly functioning reproductive system. These plus about a hundred other reasons render the issue virtually certain but as I am not omnipotent I can't say impossible. I would give it less probable chance than a person winning the lottery a thousand times in a row. In fact in actual science probabilities greater than 1 in 10^50 are considered zero and rejected. Unless of course if it makes God look less likely, in that case 1 in 10^999999999999 is a certainty. Chances of getting around abiogenesis are far worse.

DR. ARTHUR E. WILDER-SMITH
An honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates, the late Dr. Wilder-Smith held many distinguished positions. A former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).
Here are his credentials:
 Chemist
 Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
 Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
 D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
 F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry)
 Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
 Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
 Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
 Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
 NATO three-star general
 Lecturer
 Deceased
 Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film/video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be (shown widely throughout North America, Australia, and televised nationally in South Africa, Russia, and throughout the former Soviet Union).
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/wilder-smith-ae.html
When that guys speaks only a fool would dismiss it.

...What? Abiotic creation of life violates the "law" (which isn't one) of abiogenesis?

If you knew enough to be familiar with that word then you must have known that there is no known example of this producing life. This is a label for a theory concerning life and is an actuall process concerning mainly chemical evolution at a lower than equilibrium complexity. So it has no effect of abiogenesis and what effect it does have effect on has no bearing on anything concerning God.

Expand.

Contract. I kid. I of course can't list all 95%. However every single claim concerning evolution and many other things that happened before recorded history is no observable nor testable, therefore not consistent with the scientific method. That is not to say it is false just not facts. I have faith in God and the Bible based on evidence, evolutionists have faith in evolution based on evidence. The difference is I admit it and science usually doesn't.

I was not aware that radioisotope dating was "pure fantasy." I imagine that you could find the actual margins of error in most archeology papers. IIRC, they're not much larger than 10% or so.

I never mentioned radioisotope dating. I am not as familiar with it however it only gives a date. That is far short of anything needed to contradict the Bible. I do know that carbon dating is based on faith in that historical carbon levels are identical to today which is highly unlikely. Bonus: In fact carbon levels should have normalized in 30,000 years yet they haven't. I do not claim that dating is complete fantasy. Regardless what is extrapolated from that fragment of data largely is.

See if you can find a friendly biology professor. I'm sure they will be answer your questions.

Well even my college professors couldn't actually explain away the scientific problems I have with macro evolution. I have seen every debate on the issue I can find. The problems still remain.

The principle of evolution is better understood than that of gravity.

That is because (if true) the THEORY of evolution is much more pliable than gravity is. They are hemmed in by gravitational absolutes but can make up anything and call it consistent with evolution. I also do not agree with the premise above at all.

Again, ask the biology professor. However, if your reasons for thinking this are outlined below, you might as well not waste your time

I used to waste my time until I became convinced they can't answer the questions. That is at least honest and expected. What isn't as giving bad and force fit answers.

Are you aware that "suddenly" in this context refers to anything shorter than 10 million years or so? Entire species appearing in that time is quite expected - after all, we've been only around for 1% of that time.

Actually suddenly has no absolute value or range. It is a completely relative and arbitrary concept. Regardless it is irrelevant as to what recently means. The fact is the record is not consistent with evolution alone. The issue is that virtually all major body designs apparently appeared instantly and without any sign of evolution and at relatively the same time, as well as the earliest eye is also the most complex.

[Citation needed]

Cephalopods have the earliest eyes that I have found they are also at least as complex as any eye in history. With the exception of an even older and more complex eye (however I can't remember the name to save my life) in a horse shoe cran looking creature. All the most complex eye designs existed in even the Precambrian including stalk articulated eyes.

 

[1robin]

Life does not break thermodynamics - life is not a closed system.

That only matters once a creature or system with the extreme complexity that enables it to convert energy into order exists (which is not even a sure thing its self). Until that creature magically appears energy and oxygen do the same thing to chemicals that it did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What we'd think of as biology appears in the 9th century AD - 1100 years ago.

That still doesn't add up to thousands of years (which was the initial claim). Especially since most of the discoveries happened in very modern times.

The authors of the Old Testament had a general knowledge of biology akin to that of a modern 4 year old - and that's being optimistic. They have none, or perhaps even negative credibility in biology - as opposed to people who have lifetimes worth of evidence and expertise.

What in the world? The Bible is not a biology text book and it's authors probably never even considered the issue. The fact they made cosmologically, philosophically, and scientifically accurate statements is more impressive than anything Dawkins did on his best day. They knew about germs 3000 years before civil war surgeons refused to was between amputations. They knew that time, space, and matter began to exist simultaneously 3000 years before modern cosmologists adopted the idea. They knew that blood was absolutely essential to life 2600 years before medieval (scientist/doctors) were killing people by bleeding them dry. Etc infinatum........

 

[1robin]

Sorry its been a bit since I've been to a computer to add to the discussion. As soon as I get more time I will be happy to answer in full detail.

No problem.

Its quite a leap to say that because God isn't in schools, Satan has entered.

Well it is more of a logical deduction. It is far less of a leap than multiverses or time has always existed. There are not too many candidates and zero better ones to explain the moral depravity that has followed the rejection of God.

Its the parents responsibility to teach their kids about sex. Most parents fail at bringing up well behaved children.

In my world view this is a symptom not the disease.

That being said, all the atheists or non-religious parents I know personally have kids that are not pregnant and taking college courses in high school.

I do not wish to open the door on moral comparisons unless you are willing to go all the way. It is a complex topic and requires a lot of work. Besides claims to your personal circle of acquaintances is hardly proof of anything.

There were a few of my friends from church that got pregnant at 16 with guys that went to their church and went to a private school.
So from my own experience, it wasn't God that kept kids from getting prego.
What ever happened to taking responsibility for the way you raise your kids?
If you spoil them and give them a cell phone at age 11then no doubt will they turn out rotten.

I have no problem opening up the moral can of worms as God has the decked stacked in his favor but I am not sure that is a road you want to travel. For example can you prove that murder is actually wrong without reference to God?

 

[1robin]

:clap

Emoticons can't make the case that you couldn't on your own. I am just kidding.

 

[Warren Clark]

No problem.

Well it is more of a logical deduction. It is far less of a leap than multiverses or time has always existed. There are not too many candidates and zero better ones to explain the moral depravity that has followed the rejection of God.

In my world view this is a symptom not the disease.

I do not wish to open the door on moral comparisons unless you are willing to go all the way. It is a complex topic and requires a lot of work. Besides claims to your personal circle of acquaintances is hardly proof of anything.

I have no problem opening up the moral can of worms as God has the decked stacked in his favor but I am not sure that is a road you want to travel. For example can you prove that murder is actually wrong without reference to God?

Well if you are wanting to start a second debate we can... but we havent even finished the first one...

Debate 1: Science can exist with or without God
Debate 2: Moral code with or without God.

I stand on the golden rule that all religions follow God or no God.
Do as to others as you would have done unto you.

 

[Warren Clark]

No wonder you have not posted any examples. Where to start:
1. He did not carry plants, nor any creatures that did not breathe through nostrils.
2. Many Christians do not believe this is a literal story (I have no position). They say it is an allegory.
3. Regardless many studies including one by Dr Morris concluded it could have easily carried what he was required to and had space left over. It's volume was equivalent to hundreds of rail road cars.
4. There have been many wooden ships over 300 ft long. Both the ThalamegosHYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres/oTessarakonteres"Tessarakonteres are very old wooden Greek ships and were over that, Noah's ark was only 30ft longer. In fact some oriental ships were reputed to be over 500ft.
5. The reason that they had to be pumped out occasionally was that they sailed rough seas for years. The majority of the water washed over the seas in high waves. (by the way I am an amateur military historian and a 9yr navy veteran.)
6. Noah's ark only drifted in calm seas for a few weeks.
7. Now here is the trump card. No matter what men could or could not do I think a God that created the universe can build a ship that will float for a short time. You are making that classic error of assuming that supernatural events do not happen and then evaluating God. That makes no sense and is a waste of time.
8. I would rather debate far later things as they are more substantially identified as literal or symbolic and most have written records that verify them. The Bible has 25,000 plus. If it is as flawed as you prefer it to be then you should be able to find hundreds in a far more historically attested time frame. Good luck I have yet to see one and I have been challenged by hundreds. In fact nothing has boosted my faith than researching and finding out over and over how the Bible was right and it's critics wrong every time.
No it isn't and no there aren't.
You bet:
http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm
http://www.godempowersyou.com/documentation/VisualAides/Science/ScienceProvesGodofHolyBible/100%20Scientists%20Who%20Shaped%20World%20History.pdf
Here is a book on them: 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
Here is one of my favorites that completely destroy any idea of violations of abiogenesis:
DR. ARTHUR E. WILDER-SMITH
An honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates, the late Dr. Wilder-Smith held many distinguished positions. A former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).
Here are his credentials:
 Chemist
 Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
 Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
 D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
 F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry)
 Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
 Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
 Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
 Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
 NATO three-star general
 Lecturer
 Deceased
 Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film/video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be (shown widely throughout North America, Australia, and televised nationally in South Africa, Russia, and throughout the former Soviet Union).
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/wilder-smith-ae.html
When that guys speaks only a fool would dismiss it.

The fact that Noah's arc is only speculation, so are the methods of which these were made up. Noah was the first man according to the Bible to have sailed a boat especially at such a size.
And if this stuff all happening at the time it says it was, then half of these words used in the Bible weren't used until later centuries that it was written.
If it were flooding like it says for 40 days and 40 nights to fill mountain ranges covering nearly all the life underneath, it would be a hurricane or strong storm like a hurricane to make such a flood.

Plus I could hand you a book with a thousand others that say they are atheist.
It doesn't really matter.
The point is we don't know what God is or that it even exists.
And science will do its thing so that we can find a cure for cancer and AIDS, that God or Gays/Satan supposedly spread.
All while God, Jesus and Muhammad drink beer telling stories about their most enthusiastic believers.


But 6,000 years from now people are going to watch peter pan and think that was what our world was like.
Same thing happened with the bible. Someone wrote a book. People took it literally and now were stuck with people believing in virgin births.

 

[1robin]

Well if you are wanting to start a second debate we can... but we haven’t even finished the first one...

I do not care either way I was just pointing out that it would require a separate debate.

Debate 1: Science can exist with or without God

That is a bit tricky. I believe if God did not exist than neither would space, matter, or time much less scientists. However I understand the point you were making but fail to understand why it is meaningful.

Debate 2: Moral code with or without God.

Without God a moral code has no firmer foundation than opinion or preference. The deficiency of such a system is obvious. Everyone including you acts as if absolute morals exist and that requires God or some transcendent standard. Without God you can't justify the equality of man, the sanctity of life, human relative value, nor rights of any kind. Without God morals a relative and founded on nothing. Usually atheists say morals are founded on feelings or opinion. Some cultures love their neighbors based on feelings and some eat their neighbors based on feelings. Do you have a preference?

I stand on the

golden rule that all religions follow God or no God.
Do as to others as you would have done unto you.

That is a fine idea but is insufficient for the needs of law and civil society. Our needs are far too complex for this rule to be the arbiter. For example what in that rule can be used to suggest to a mother in 1862 to risk losing her 5 sons (it actually happened) in an effort to set another racial group free composed of strangers. That requires an absolute moral framework far beyond what anything without God can supply.

 

[1robin]

The fact that Noah's arc is only speculation, so are the methods of which these were made up. Noah was the first man according to the Bible to have sailed a boat especially at such a size.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I can't agree or disagree.

And if this stuff all happening at the time it says it was, then half of these words used in the Bible weren't used until later centuries that it was written.

Again I have little idea what you are saying. If it's language use then these stories were passed down orally until they were much later written down in the language currently in use. I see no issue at all here.

If it were flooding like it says for 40 days and 40 nights to fill mountain ranges covering nearly all the life underneath, it would be a hurricane or strong storm like a hurricane to make such a flood.

Once again you are making a faulty argument concerning God. God must be assumed hypothetically in order to evaluate him (even though many critics rule out God and the supernatural and then want to debate him anyway). If he exists you have no reason to declare what he can and cannot do, if that is what you are saying. Maybe you were commenting on the sea worthiness of the craft. As a Navy veteran I can say for sure that hurricanes are not much of a threat for a large ship.
You are assuming God is constrained by natural law and would have had to introduce high winds and heavy seas in order to get a lot of water. That is a mistake. Even in the story it's self it became relatively calm very quickly and I have heard naval experts say the ark's design was extremely stable. As a side note there have been giant stones found around mount Ararat that have giant holes drilled in them. They are used by ancient vessels to maintain stability in rough seas and these are the biggest ever found. I am not saying they are meaningful just interesting. I do not even know if the story is supposed to be literal.

Plus I could hand you a book with a thousand others that say they are atheist.

It doesn't really matter.

No it doesn't, I have no idea why you would have thought giving me a thousands books that say (who?) is atheist would have mattered. I do not even know what you are saying.

The point is we don't know what God is or that it even exists.

I have never indicated we did. We do however have more than enough information to believe it very very likely he does exist. There are approx. 2 Billion Christians in the world. You can't become a Christian without having a confirming experience with God. I am not saying two billion prove God exists but it is the depths of nonsense to think that they are all mistaken. By the way no other religion demands or offers this personal connection with the deity for every single follower, so you can't bring out the old trusty well what about other religions reply, they only require an intellectual commitment to a philosophy and offer no reply from God in return except for rare and special cases.

And science will do its thing so that we can find a cure for cancer and AIDS, that God or Gays/Satan supposedly spread.

I hope so, however if you are waiting around for science to fix what is wrong with this world it will be a long wait.

All while God, Jesus and Muhammad drink beer telling stories about their most enthusiastic believers.

Come on, that wasn't even funny.

But 6,000 years from now people are going to watch peter pan and think that was what our world was like.

I doubt it. For one thing I am sure that in far less than 6000 years if Jesus does not return, using some of the things science has given us we will have killed ourselves.

Same thing happened with the bible. Someone wrote a book. People took it literally and now were stuck with people believing in virgin births.

That or that the Virgin Birth happened and God required people to write it down so as to be a reliable witness of his existence and people through a resistance to accountability of confident in the infinatetessimally small amount of knowledge they have felt superior to any need for God and so rejected him. This kind of stuff does not advance the debate. Try sticking to the mountains of problems you say the Bible has that occurred within recorded history. I have already suggested several but prophecy is a good place to begin. These rant like personal assertions will never resolve anything.

I also believe your percieved war between science and God is more of a contrived mock skirmish. Here is what a very distinguished scientist said on the issue:

"Professor Ambrose Fleming, emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London, honorary fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, receiver of the Faraday medal in 1928...one of England's outstanding scientists..." asserts that there is nothing in the Gospels that would cause a man of science to have problems with the miracles contained therein, and concludes with a challenge to intellectual honesty, asserting that if such a "...study is pursued with what eminent lawyers have called a willing mind, it will engender a deep assurance that the Christian Church is not founded on fictions, or nourished on delusions, or, as St. Peter calls them, 'cunningly devised fables,' but on historical and actual events, which, however strange they may be, are indeed the greatest events which have ever happened in the history of the world."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html