The Debate of God.

[Prophet]

Daviso452: I think it's humorous to note that I was considering calling you a closeted intelligent design advocate during this debates most heated moments.

 

[Tiberius]

If there was intelligence invovled in the creation of encyclopedias, then there was intelligence invovled in the creation of the DNA structure, which is vastly more complex than encyclopedias.

You asking "what makes anyone think theres intelligence invovled", would be the same as me asking "what makes anyone think intelligence was invovled in constructing the space shuttle???"

Guess what, the DNA code is more complex than that, too.

Complexity does not require intelligence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Complexity does not require intelligence.

Specified complexity does.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Complexity does not require intelligence.

Ah, it's like believing in creationism then.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Daviso452;2791648]You just made a jump beyond the likes of which I have ever seen. Yes, we are intelligent because we can make sense of it and process how it works. However there is no connection between that and requiring intelligence to cause it. Just because we understand something does not mean it was put there with design. I'm sorry but you have grossly mis-crossed two concepts that have nothing to do with one another. One says we observe and are intelligent. One says intelligence is required for order. The only common factor is intelligence, but the concepts themselves are independent of one another. Just because we observe things through our intelligence it doesn't mean that intelligence caused it.

Science is always evolving and changing, what we don't know today, we will know in the near future. There are a few who hold that the although this existence is structured and can be understood with only intelligence but does not require intelligence to cause it, and there are people who think that maybe intelligence has caused it. , does my belief cause any hindrance to science or the human race?

I am not saying it is wrong; just that you are trying to prove it with something totally unrelated.

They seem related to me, as the common factor of intelligence is still there.
And im not saying its right, its a maybe. I don't like to take the explanations of Scientist about the Universe and its existence to be 100% facts, these are just people, they have there own agendas and theories behind their assertions. Im not saying that they could be wrong or right but to discard alternative views as many do is a bit arrogant, that's what I think.

Theories are based around evidence. Not vice versa. We currently have no evidence of this intelligent force, and so it is not included. If such evidence was found, however, then we would add it. But so far no such evidence exists.

So far no such evidence exists to absolutely throw my idea out the window, but as i said earlier Science is always evolving and changing, i shall hold on to this "theory' of mine till i can or till Science proves it to me.

Now if i am proven wrong, then what?, do you expect me to become atheist or agnostic or Humanist a scientist and just dump my current "ism" and join the "istic's.
What is the purpose of abolishing my belief or theory, now that you have least some idea of it?

 

[Daviso452]

Specified complexity does.

Still no. You need to understand that it doesn't matter how many examples you have of complex designed things. If evolution has enough evidence behind it, it is a counter example to your claim that complexity requires intelligence. ONE counterexample, and by that I mean a real counterexample, means you have to re-write your claim. It may mostly right, but you need to account for the counter example.

Basically, you need to disprove evolution. But, like God, you can never be 100% sure. You go the route of faith and believe in God. I go the route of evidence and believe in Evolution.

I'm sorry for insulting you. Sometimes I just get incredibly mad. But please note that very few have supported you, and many have supported me. Doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean I have support, and that you may not truly understand why we believe what we believe. But if you do, then it means nothing.

However, my point still stands. If we have evidence, then no matter HOW LUDICROUS an idea may seem, it is not faith. It is rational. Again, I go back to light bending. The concept was ludicrous (such as you state life coming from non-life is), but the evidence proved it was true (adaption, DNA, fossils, etc.). If you question the validity of the evidence, then we have nothing to argue about.

 

[Daviso452]

Daviso452: I think it's humorous to note that I was considering calling you a closeted intelligent design advocate during this debates most heated moments.

I have given evidence for evolution. Even if I'm wrong, however, does not make you right. You still have not reasoned why your definition is right. If you believe love is what you believe it is because it falls in line with your faith in God, then that is a whole different conversation. But saying Love is something, with no evidence, but with evidence on the contrary (which you have not shown why it is wrong), does lower the validity of your claim.

Does anyone (except Wild) agree with me? Does anyone else (except Wild) think I'm wrong? I think we have been to trapped in ourselves. Closed systems result in chaos. We need an outside source (except for Wild).

 

[Prophet]

I don't understand why you've responded to an out of context snarky remark as if it was debate, especially when you just passed over my previous post which actually was debate.

I am not addressing Call_of_the_Wild in debate because I was raised amongst religious fundies like him. I've observed how people like him reason for the better part of 30 years and I sincerely doubt that there is much more I can learn from him, and more importantly, I doubt he can learn from me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Still no. You need to understand that it doesn't matter how many examples you have of complex designed things. If evolution has enough evidence behind it, it is a counter example to your claim that complexity requires intelligence.

Thats the problem. Evolution doesn't have enough evidence behind it. It is a lie. The concept that every living thing has the same concept is neither supported nor demonstrated. Let me predict that you will say some crap like "thats not what evolution is!!!" or something of the sort. But that is what evolution is. And if you dont agree with that, then what do you believe? That every living thing has a common ancestor?? Guess what, Christians believe that as well. So what is the difference? BTW, I would like for you to answer the question of how do male and females have exactly what is needed to reproduce with the opposite sex. Males have penises, and females have vaginas. Each gender just happen to have what is needed to reproduce. This could not have happened by means of a blind evolutionary process. Do you know why? Because while the male was evovling his human reproductive system, the female would have had to be evovling her female reproductive system at the exact same time as the males. If either gender evovled before the other, there would have been no reproducing. So if a male had a complete reproductive system, lets say, 10 million years ago, and the female evovled hers 5 million years after that, then there would be 5 million years of males and females NOT reproducing. This question is not just for humans, but for EVERY living and breathing organism. The same question for insects. This is the same for aquatic animals also. The answer is, that both genders had to be created at the same time, or very shortly thereafter. You cant say it happened by evolution over a short period of time, because evolution takes a longggg time, remember??? So you dont have a leg to stand on. But go ahead, answer the question. I have asked this question before, and no one has been able to give a half way decent answer as to how and why the males reproductive system just HAPPEN to have the right ingredients within the system to mate with a female, who just happen to have the right things within her system. This question applies to EVERY LIVING AND BREATHING THING. So Davies, since you think you know so much, answer this question. This is an example of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY that i mentioned before.

ONE counterexample, and by that I mean a real counterexample, means you have to re-write your claim. It may mostly right, but you need to account for the counter example.

So go ahead, provide me a counter example. I will wait.

Basically, you need to disprove evolution. But, like God, you can never be 100% sure. You go the route of faith and believe in God. I go the route of evidence and believe in Evolution.

Provide evidence for evolution. Give me the best evidence for evolution. Show me evidence that we all came from one common ancestor. I will wait.

I'm sorry for insulting you. Sometimes I just get incredibly mad. But please note that very few have supported you, and many have supported me.

This is not surprising, based on the fact that the majority of people that i talk to on here are NON-THEISTS, so of course they wont support me. BTW, i accept your apology. I get angry too. I cut people off that I get angry with, but not because of them insulting me, but because of their view points. I cant talk to people that will believe that something can come from absolute nothingness. They choose believing in absurdities like that rather than believe in God. Now i do find that insulting.

However, my point still stands. If we have evidence, then no matter HOW LUDICROUS an idea may seem, it is not faith.

Provide this evidence. I cant wait to see this so called "evidence".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Evolution doesn't have enough evidence behind it.

So you accept the big bang theory (despite rejecting the fundamentals behind the theory), but evolution is unsubstatiated? I'm not sure I'm following your basis for accepting or rejecting scientific theories.

 

[Daviso452]

You're right. They would die out. It would be incredibly difficult for them to get it right. But remember, it only takes one. That's how natural selection works. Those who are unable to reproduce or survive, die out. Those who can, live. It is likely that all those who didn't evolve their reproductive organs in sync died out. But our ancestors evolved correctly, and so we survived to today. That's part of the reason why some species go extinct.

The common ancestor you propose is from a man and woman named Adam and Eve. The common ancestors that evolution proposes, for humans at least, were from Africa, and were more than two. Do you trust the Smithsonian? If so, check this out: Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

As for the origin of life itself, well, take a look at this: The Miller/Urey Experiment
As far as I know, only amino acids have been created in these conditions so far, not life itself. However it does prove that it is possible for life to have formed. If amino acids were given a few billions years, I believe it is reasonable to say that eventually one or more of them would lock into the right places that would start life.

But that's still speculation. Tests still need to be made, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

As for evidence for evolution, there is a multitude of it. Adaptation shows it is possible for organisms to mutate their DNA to fit new environments, which is evolution on a smaller scale. Fossils and skeletal structure create a tree of common ancestors between species. The DNA similarities of species, such as mice and humans, show some sort of commonality.

Yes, this may have theological explanations behind it, but this is not an argument against God. In order to be unbiased, you must approach it from the position of "I don't know if God exists." From there, you base your conclusions on the evidence alone. To say the commonalities were because of God would require the assumption God exists. Agreed?

These three pieces of evidence, fossils, and DNA, combine to create the image that all life originates from a common ancestor, and over time life adapted and changed into what they are today. It does not explain the origin of life, but it does explain the state of life today.

That is my evidence. Your turn.

 

[Tiberius]

Specified complexity does.

Yes, if a particular outcome is desired and then that outcome is achieved, then yes. However, I am not aware of that happening in nature. Are you?

 

[Prophet]

Adaptation shows it is possible for organisms to mutate their DNA to fit new environments,

I challenge the veracity of this statement.

 

[Tiberius]

DNA mutation is not a conscious choice. But over generations, DNA can change slightly because of mutations. If the change is beneficial, then it tends to stay. If it is harmful, then it tends to go.

 

[godnotgod]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

It is futile to discuss the existence or non-existence of God. For one thing, God is not subject to duality, and existence or non-existence would encapsulate him in duality.

What we should be asking is: why are we asking whether something we term 'God' exists or not-exists?

Once we understand what our motive is, we will begin to understand our own human nature. So it is far more important to do what is necessary to gain a clear view rather than become lost in conceptual thought.

The Buddha tried to tell us about this in one of his parables, in which a man had been fatally shot with an arrow. A doctor passing by stops to save the man's life by offering to pull out the arrow and treat him, but the man protests, and wants to know what species of wood the arrow is made of, what kind of bird its feathers come from, who made the arrow and where he is from, etc, etc, before the doctor pulls the arrow out. By the time the man's questions are answered, he would be dead.

And so it is with the human condition. We are in a state of suffering, which we should be trying to understand the nature of so we can become liberated. Instead, we look outside ourselves, to an image we ourselves project. In short, we are playing divine hide and seek with ourselves, pretending not to know.

We're all frauds!

"God did not create the universe....
God became the universe!"
Deepak Chopra

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Swami Vivikenanda

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're right. They would die out. It would be incredibly difficult for them to get it right. But remember, it only takes one.

Sorry, but for reproduction, it doesnt take just one, "it takes two babyyyy, it takes two babyyyy, just me and you (not you), just us twooooo"

That's how natural selection works. Those who are unable to reproduce or survive, die out. Those who can, live. It is likely that all those who didn't evolve their reproductive organs in sync died out.

Well, we wouldnt have any genders then, therefore no species of any living and breathing organsm would exist. If males evolved more quickly than females, there wouldnt be any females to mate with, making natural selection useless because natural selection depends upon REPRODUCTION.

But our ancestors evolved correctly, and so we survived to today. That's part of the reason why some species go extinct.

Not so fast. You cant just fast foward and say "our ancestors evovled correctly", that doesnt answer the question of how. I would like to see you BEGIN to address this feat.

The common ancestor you propose is from a man and woman named Adam and Eve. The common ancestors that evolution proposes, for humans at least, were from Africa, and were more than two.

As I stated before, the fact that males and females both have reproductive systems compatible with each other, one can only draw the conclusion that this occurred either at the same time or very shortly thereafter. I don't see how a blind evolutionary process that takes millions of years for even a small change could have been the cause of this (which is what you believe). But I can see how a powerful God could have created a man with the right reproductive system, and a reproductive system for a female that the created a day or so later. Now when you compare the Genesis account with the evolutionary account, the Genesis account makes more sense. If you think otherwise, state how. And remember, we are not just talking about humans, but every living and breathing organsm from aquatic life and insects. The same question applies to them as well.

As for the origin of life itself, well, take a look at this: The Miller/Urey Experiment
As far as I know, only amino acids have been created in these conditions so far, not life itself.

The Miller/Urey experiment was plagued with holes from the very beginning when they spiked the conditions of the early earth to suit their purposes. This is a known fact and is well established, so you are either not in tune with modern biology, or you are just in denial As far as amino acids are concerned, an unguided and random process of chemical evolution could not have gotten the job done in that regard as well. So again, the ToE has been a lie, and has proven to be a lie for many many years.

However it does prove that it is possible for life to have formed. If amino acids were given a few billions years, I believe it is reasonable to say that eventually one or more of them would lock into the right places that would start life.

Its not that simple. This is not something that even a billion years of chemical evolution could create. Its not just a matter of collecting amino acids, you have to get the RIGHT amino acids. There are at least 80 different types, but only 20 are found in living organism. Then, you have to isolate those 20 from the other 60, and place these 20 in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. This is just the first step!!! We could go on and on.

As for evidence for evolution, there is a multitude of it. Adaptation shows it is possible for organisms to mutate their DNA to fit new environments, which is evolution on a smaller scale.

Well this isn't the "evolution" I was talking about, because the theists can easily say that God created organisms with the ability to be able to adapt to certain enviorments, since he would have known that no species would stay in one habitat thoughout its entire existence. Now, you have no way of disproving this, nor can you prove that this ability was caused by natural means. But none of this is the point, the point is, where did living and breathing organisms come from? You still have the reproduction problem, and you also have the problem of explaining how can unguided, un-intellectual, brainless, blind, and random matter could produce life, intelligence, and order. How can things that dont have these characterics produce the complete OPPOSITE of what it is??? (Unguided, un-intellectual-brainless-blind, and random) <-------these are not just characteristics of the matter, but these are also characteristics of the PROCESS, which is indepedent of the "matter" problem. You have to believe all of this in order to not to believe in God.

Fossils and skeletal structure create a tree of common ancestors between species. The DNA similarities of species, such as mice and humans, show some sort of commonality.

Instead of thinking that similiar DNA suggests common ancestor, did it ever occur to you that the similiarities could mean common designer?? God made every living thing with the same ingredients for life. This suggest common designer. Human and mice have no relation and nothing in common, other than the same creator created us both. A school bus and city bus have similiarities, but that doesn't prove that the city bus evovled from a school bus. It proves that the same blueprint was made to create both

In order to be unbiased, you must approach it from the position of "I don't know if God exists."

Ok, fine. So lets say there is a UFO that has crashed in a field, and we go to it and look inside. Lets say we find all of this complex machinery inside. We dont know where this spacecraft came from, nor do we discover any bodies inside, but based on observation and the complexity of what is inside it, we know that it didnt come from any known NASA programs within the earth. Well, up until we made this discover, we had the "I dont know if aliens exists" approach, but after the discover, we can safely say "aliens exist". This is the same thing with God and his creations. We see complexity within the universe that is best explained with Intelligent Design, just like we see the UFO that is best explained with Intelligent Design, even if we dont know who the Designer is and where he came from (if he did).

From there, you base your conclusions on the evidence alone. To say the commonalities were because of God would require the assumption God exists. Agreed?

Of course

These three pieces of evidence, fossils, and DNA, combine to create the image that all life originates from a common ancestor, and over time life adapted and changed into what they are today. It does not explain the origin of life, but it does explain the state of life today.

We are talking about origins of life, period, not what happened after life began to form.

 

[cottage]

False statement. The universe began to exist, cottage. Now I know that may be a hard thing for non-theists to grasp, but that is where the evidence points. The universe began to exist. Big Bang cosmology has the strongest evidence supporting it. There was nothing, at least from a naturalistic perspective, that existed before the big bang. Second, the world cannot be eternal, because that would suggest an infinite past, but as I have argued elsewhere, an infinite past is not possible. So we have both scientific and philosophical reasons why the universe began to exist. You have to deal with those arguments and not just reject the idea because you are aware of its implications.

Actually that was nota false statement – unless you can demonstrate the contrary. And I have both scientific and philosophical objections to what you suppose. Science argues, mathematically, that the world can observe its own beginning (BBE). Now if everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence then the BBE, as an effect, requires a cause, and yet if the BBE is indeed an effect then it has an unobserved cause; and the term ‘exists’ as it is used here is misleading because what science terms as the ‘beginning’ is actually the formation of the universe, as we know it now. There is no conclusive argument that I’m aware of that says prior to the expanding universe there were no physical or material phenomena in existence, and nor does the theory seek to explain the origin, only the development of the universe. The controversy is confounded further because there is no necessity in what we understand by ‘causation’. For what does it mean to say everything that begins to exist is in want of a cause? All we've done is to identify features of our material world and then speculatively apply them to other worlds (God). But that is an illegitimate inference. The principle of cause and effect is an essential part of our world, without which our existence would be impossible; and yet there is no law of cause and effect, no logical demonstration that informs us that one thing is the cause of another thing. So if we cannot even demonstrate causality in the material world it seems overly ambitious to use it to try and explain supernatural ones.

This is confusing the two concepts of "the origin of all matter", and the "origin of material forms after all matter began to exist". Those are two completely different concepts and I am speaking of the origin of all matter. If the universe began to exist, then matter began to exist. Matter that changes from one form to another does not answer the question of the ORGIN OF ALL MATTER in general.

As someone who is by no means a died-in-the-wool materialist I have to ask what precisely is meant by the ambiguous term ‘all matter’? Such a confident assumption was challenged in 1779 with a question asked by David Hume: ‘We dare not affirm that we know not all the qualities of matter’ [therefore] ‘why may the material universe not be the Supreme Being?’ That question is as relevant now as it was then. And as a proposition it has something to recommend it, for although neither an internal power or external deity can be demonstrated there are nevertheless two distinct advantages in favour of the former hypothesis: for while we cannot argue that cause and effect exists outside the universe, we agree as a matter of fact that the universe and a particular feature of the universe (causation) actually exist! And that is more than can be said of ‘God’, a doctrinal belief-as-faith. And to further the point it is the case that, theist or sceptic, we cannot logically conceive of God without conceiving of the world, and yet we can conceive of the world without involving any conception of God whatsoever.

No it doesn't. Instead of creating humans, God could have only created spiritual beings, and spirtual beings dont have to exist in a physcial world (angels).

But he did (according to you) create humans. Therefore God, supposedly a necessary being, requires contingent properties in order to create contingent effects. A contradiction twice over.

As I mentioned above, a physical world is not a requirement. It was a CHOICE by God. He could have easily created all spiritual creatures, and presided over them in a spiritual world. In fact, that is EXACTLY what he is doing with the angels.

‘Angels’? (!) It is not a question of what he might have done, or what he’s supposedly done elsewhere, but a plain fact of human existence. God is inextricably dependent upon the world and nothing about the concept can be demonstrated other than in human terms, which is why it leads to contradictions or absurdities and the need for special pleading.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Big Bang cosmology has the strongest evidence supporting it.

According to you the fundamental tool for physicists (calculus) which is also fundamental to big bang cosmology only works on paper.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually that was nota false statement – unless you can demonstrate the contrary. And I have both scientific and philosophical objections to what you suppose.

So back up your claims, show me both scientific and philosophical objections to my positions.

Science argues, mathematically, that the world can observe its own beginning (BBE).

Science cannot explain the origins of the beginning. Yeah, we can trace your universes expansion all the way back to the initial singularity, but it stops there, because there is no naturalistic reasoning after you take away space and matter, which is exactly what you do once you go back in time. So we need a transcendent cause.

Now if everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence then the BBE, as an effect, requires a cause, and yet if the BBE is indeed an effect then it has an unobserved cause; and the term ‘exists’ as it is used here is misleading because what science terms as the ‘beginning’ is actually the formation of the universe, as we know it now.

Huh? According to Big Bang cosmology, THERE WAS NO UNIVERSE BEFORE THE BIG BANG. There is no "as we know it" business going on here. Physicists recognize that that our universe began to exist, that is why they have been panicking in their attempts to come up with naturalistic explanations for WHY and HOW our universe began to exist. The universe begin to exist, suggesting that there was a time at which THERE WAS NO UNIVERSE AT ALL.

There is no conclusive argument that I’m aware of that says prior to the expanding universe there were no physical or material phenomena in existence, and nor does the theory seek to explain the origin, only the development of the universe.

Actually there is, it is called the "Standard Model" of the big bang. In this model, literally nothing existed before the big bang. This is by far the best explanation, and it has the most evidence supporting it. All other models and proposals fall short. And you are right, it doesn't explain the origin, but it does give support to the second premise of the argument, that the universe began to exist. This is evidence from cosmology, which is independent evidence from the evidence from entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as well. And in case empirical evidence isn't enough, we have logical reasoning from philosophy that the universe had to have had a beginning. So I think we have more reasons than not to believe that the universe began to exist, and therefore require a transcendent cause. If you don't believe this, then you should have no problem tearing down all the arguments that support a finite universe and replacing them with the opposite.

The controversy is confounded further because there is no necessity in what we understand by ‘causation’. For what does it mean to say everything that begins to exist is in want of a cause?

Cmon now cottage. It is to easy. You, yourself....did you begin to exist?? Was there ever a point at which you didnt exist? The answer is obviously yes. So, there was a reason why you began to exist, right??? The answer is also yes. So in the same way that you began and require a cause for yourse existence, apply that to the universe. Get it?

All we've done is to identify features of our material world and then speculatively apply them to other worlds (God). But that is an illegitimate inference.

Huh?? This is not about identifying features. The universe as a WHOLE began to exist, and therefore requires a transcendent cause. This is the logical inference of not believing that things can create themselves.

The principle of cause and effect is an essential part of our world, without which our existence would be impossible; and yet there is no law of cause and effect, no logical demonstration that informs us that one thing is the cause of another thing. So if we cannot even demonstrate causality in the material world it seems overly ambitious to use it to try and explain supernatural ones.

My parents have been married for 26 years. Before they met, I didn't exist. After they met, fell in love, and chilled for about 9 months, out I came. I am the result of them falling in love. They caused me. I am the effect. I really dont see where you are going with this "no logical demonstration at that informs us that one things is the cause of another thing."

As someone who is by no means a died-in-the-wool materialist I have to ask what precisely is meant by the ambiguous term ‘all matter’? Such a confident assumption was challenged in 1779 with a question asked by David Hume: ‘We dare not affirm that we know not all the qualities of matter’ [therefore] ‘why may the material universe not be the Supreme Being?’ That question is as relevant now as it was then. And as a proposition it has something to recommend it, for although neither an internal power or external deity can be demonstrated there are nevertheless two distinct advantages in favour of the former hypothesis: for while we cannot argue that cause and effect exists outside the universe, we agree as a matter of fact that the universe and a particular feature of the universe (causation) actually exist! And that is more than can be said of ‘God’, a doctrinal belief-as-faith. And to further the point it is the case that, theist or sceptic, we cannot logically conceive of God without conceiving of the world, and yet we can conceive of the world without involving any conception of God whatsoever.

I really dont know where you are going with this. I really dont.

But he did (according to you) create humans. Therefore God, supposedly a necessary being, requires contingent properties in order to create contingent effects. A contradiction twice over.

Fail to see where you are going with this as well...

‘Angels’? (!) It is not a question of what he might have done, or what he’s supposedly done elsewhere, but a plain fact of human existence. God is inextricably dependent upon the world and nothing about the concept can be demonstrated other than in human terms, which is why it leads to contradictions or absurdities and the need for special pleading.

Makes no sense to me...

 

[Daviso452]

Dear Wild,

We have been debating with each other for many weeks now. I feel a sort of rivalry, and almost hatred, has grown between the two of us. Because of this, both of our judgement's are impaired, which is why I believe we seem to have a hard time coming to an agreement. I shall list off a few of my main points, and you are free to criticize, but I shall respond no longer.

We are talking about origins of life, period, not what happened after life began to form.

We are discussing both. You were criticizing evolution, and so I gave my evidence for it, which you do not seem to disagree with. Concerning the origin of life, continue reading and you will see.


Your criticisms of Miller-Urey are hollow and are not well-established. The discovery channel, which I consider a reliable source, supports the validity of it:HowStuffWorks "The Early Earth"
In case you were wondering, check the upper right-hand corner. "How Stuff Works" is a discovery channel company. I also found this: Meteorite contains complex organic molecules | COSMOS magazine
A little different, but still somewhat related. One final article from Science magazine: Primordial Soup Researchers Gather at Watering Hole
Not sure if you are sub'd to Science mag or not, but I feel that summary gives a good indication of the contents.

There are my sources. It's your choice if you believe them or not.

Concerning how they all came together, you are right, those conditions are incredibly specific and very unlikely to occur. But you must realize that it isn't impossible. The amino acids were on earth for millions of years before life had been formed. I believe it is possible that one single moment out of those millions of years of chaos may have had enough order for life to occur. Basically, it was all a complete chance, and of all the moments that the amino acids didn't make life (the vast majority of moments), this one single moment did have the necessary order. It's like the saying, "put enough monkeys in a room with a typewriter and they will produce Shakespeare." Same exact concept.

To be clear, I am not literally saying that life began in a single moment. The amino acids would have been connecting with each other countless times over the millions of times. The correct ones eventually connected with each other and eventually life was born.

This is all I have to say concerning the Miller-Urey experiment.


Here is another summary from Science Mag:Sex, Death, and the Red Queen
Those are the reasons for why and how sexual reproduction came about. However, that still doesn't answer your criticism. When I said "it only takes one" I did not literally mean one person. I meant that it only takes one pair of sexually reproducing organisms to spread the gene.

Again, all those who couldn't reproduce sexually correctly just died out. That is why they are no longer here. But the ones that did were able to breed exponentially. If you took 10 pairs of creatures, and 9 of them had reproductive organs that would not work together, then they would die out. The 1 that survives, however, or the one pair that evolved correctly, is free to breed, and soon you again have 10 pairs of creatures again. This time, however, they can correctly reproduce, and this species lives on.

This is my reasoning for sexual reproduction. I admit, it could be wrong, but only because you can never be 100% sure.


Life is nothing but matter and energy. Order happens naturally, such as our galaxy, Giant's causeway, or even a snowflake. Complexity and order are not unique to life. The part where we split (as well as with me and prophet) is that you consider life to be something special and unique from normal matter. I see life as just another chemical reaction with considerable differences from other matter.

I also consider the concept of intelligence just a chemical process. That at least is proven to be true. Our senses send chemical signals to our brain which interprets it. However, the concept of consciousness and awareness is still one being discussed by both philosophers and scientists. I do not think either of us could make a good case for our arguments concerning this.

Bottom line, there is no part of our physical body that isn't matter. Our cells, proteins, and DNA are all made up of some sort of matter.


I have enjoyed our discussion, Wild. Debates give me such a thrill, and you have been a worthy opponent. I hope your mind is open enough to understand, and even accept, what I have to say. I also hope that my mind does not close itself up to other ideas without my knowledge.

Though we have a vast amount of differences, and tensions between us have been high, I hope that I may count you a friend on this forum. Thank you for the discussion.

-Daviso452