Faith is an illusion

[Rouger2]

We just had to have a creator. Our scientist cannot create life and never will be able to, and even if they could it would be a microsocopic one celled animal or plant. To go from there to a human being even if you had a million years to work with would be impossible for our scientists, and we are suppose to have formed by ourself from mud soup.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

We just had to have a creator. Our scientist cannot create life and never will be able to, and even if they could it would be a microsocopic one celled animal or plant. To go from there to a human being even if you had a million years to work with would be impossible for our scientists, and we are suppose to have formed by ourself from mud soup.

Humans have not even been around that long. All of the progress we have made has been very, very recent in comparison to our span of existence. Don't mistake inability now to inability forever.

We didn't "form" ourselves according to theory. It just says that simple life changed over time according to natural selection and mutation. This theory was formed based on the evidence that was found - it's not as though someone just made it up and went looking for evidence to prove it.

You are also comparing an intelligence to nature. Nature does not have goals. Evolution does not have goals.

I see the argument that complex things are created by people, hence even more complex things (ie: existence, the universe) must have also been created by a greater being.

This argument assumes that complexity must denote intelligence.

[Thomas Crown]

To believe that your assertion that the "complexity denotes intelligence" assumption is incorrect, you have to also acknowledge the concept that complexity cannot be random. You cannot disregard one assumption without disregarding the other with no facts to support either.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Humans have not even been around that long. All of the progress we have made has been very, very recent in comparison to our span of existence. Don't mistake inability now to inability forever.

We didn't "form" ourselves according to theory. It just says that simple life changed over time according to natural selection and mutation. This theory was formed based on the evidence that was found - it's not as though someone just made it up and went looking for evidence to prove it.

You are also comparing an intelligence to nature. Nature does not have goals. Evolution does not have goals.

I see the argument that complex things are created by people, hence even more complex things (ie: existence, the universe) must have also been created by a greater being.

This argument assumes that complexity must denote intelligence.

I should not have used the word formed. We did not form ourselves. I am talking about evolution, and I believe in it, but believe that it was influenced by a Creator. I think that is very obvious when we, our smartest scientist, can not even make the simplest of life forms. How many million years of randomness can a scientist in a labortory count for. It is so very obvious that evolution was aided by a Creator. If we cannot even make the simplest of life forms with all our intelligence and facilities how could life elvoved from nothing to a complex human being by itself. It would not matter how many million years you had it could not happen. I believe there is a scientific law that states no life can come from non life. That law would have to be broken to start with.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

To believe that your assertion that the "complexity denotes intelligence" assumption is incorrect, you have to also acknowledge the concept that complexity cannot be random. You cannot disregard one assumption without disregarding the other with no facts to support either.

Hence my position that it is impossible to know with our current tools.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by RougerI

It is so very obvious that evolution was aided by a Creator. If we cannot even make the simplest of life forms with all our intelligence and facilities how could life elvoved from nothing to a complex human being by itself.

First of all thing evolve from other things, not nothing. Science tests "obvious" things and sometimes they are wrong.

Originally Posted by RougerI

It would not matter how many million years you had it could not happen.

What basis do you have to say that?

Originally Posted by RougerI

I believe there is a scientific law that states no life can come from non life. That law would have to be broken to start with.

I'm have no heard of this. In any case life from non-life is abiogenesis, a separate theory to evolution.

Originally Posted by Wiki

The ur-organism implication of Darwin's theories would have occurred in the deep geological past, the dawn of time on this planet, 3.87 billion years ago, and it had a billion years from the beginning of the planet to be formed.

A billion years is a long time, how can you say it is not possible for life to be formed when our observations are but a tiny fraction of that time.

Of course, in terms of making it true that is not sufficient as it is very difficult to falsify

[Thomas Crown]

I think he means matter from nothing. Science states that matter "is". It cannot be created or destroyed. So if matter "is", how did it start?

That is where the creator comes in.

[Rouger2]

I don't know for sure but I believe evolution claims that we evolved from a little heat, water, and mud, or that life evolved from non life. We grew from a one cell animal to multicelled animals to worms to fish and snakes and then mammels and on up to us. I am just one guy but from what I have seen and learned in my life tells me that this could never happen in no matter how many millions of years by itself. It very obvious to me we humans are just much to complicated to have evolved that way, and how would a great amount of time help. The creater helped.

Originally Posted by Kytro

First of all thing evolve from other things, not nothing. Science tests "obvious" things and sometimes they are wrong.



What basis do you have to say that?



I'm have no heard of this. In any case life from non-life is abiogenesis, a separate theory to evolution.



A billion years is a long time, how can you say it is not possible for life to be formed when our observations are but a tiny fraction of that time.

Of course, in terms of making it true that is not sufficient as it is very difficult to falsify

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

I think he means matter from nothing. Science states that matter "is". It cannot be created or destroyed. So if matter "is", how did it start?

That is where the creator comes in.

That just moves the problem to the creator

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't know for sure but I believe evolution claims that we evolved from a little heat, water, and mud, or that life evolved from non life.

Evolution does not really talk about how life starts, only how it changes.

Originally Posted by Rouger2

We grew from a one cell animal to multicelled animals to worms to fish and snakes and then mammels and on up to us. I am just one guy but from what I have seen and learned in my life tells me that this could never happen in no matter how many millions of years by itself. It very obvious to me we humans are just much to complicated to have evolved that way, and how would a great amount of time help. The creater helped.

Since humans have only been around for a small part of history we look at the evidence to determine how life changes and came up with evolution.

As for how time helps.

Simply put:

1) Mutation occurs
2) Mutation is successful
3) Genes propagated
4) Goto no 1

Now recall that there many many creatures involved so parallel mutations occur (most are not useful).

I'm not trying to disprove a creator, but nor can assume one exists. In terms of religion however the assumption that a creator exists is almost irrelevant.

Assuming a creator exists, there is no way to determine the goals, or intent of such a being. It's a big jump from "a creator exists" to "a creator exists who thinks like humans and has human emotions and wishes to interact with them"

[up|dn]

Originally Posted by Kytro

That just moves the problem to the creator

Reminds me of this gif:


I don't disbelieve in God, I just don't think of God as some entity separate from the universe. I think of God as the intelligence that is integral to the universe, I guess.

[Thomas Crown]

That is a horrible use of occams razor. and wrong to boot.

[Rouger2]

I don't know if us evolving from a one celled animal formed millions of years ago in a warm sea is part of evolution, but it is taught in high school science classes. Well that was long ago, for me, but I am almost sure that is where I learned it.
To me there is enough evidence to know there was a creator and not have to rely on faith. I think that is important to know. That was hard enough for me now to go from there to know anything about the creator and his desires for us. I don't know but I feel that most of the time we are on our own and maybe that is the way it should be. I would hate to be just a robot. Can we, because I don't think one person can on his own, at least not at this time, survive and prosper, maybe that is the challenge the Creator has given us after all we need something to get us up in the morning.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't know if us evolving from a one celled animal formed millions of years ago in a warm sea is part of evolution, but it is taught in high school science classes. Well that was long ago, for me, but I am almost sure that is where I learned it.

Not so much "us" as all life had a starting point. Evolution is about how things changed from that point until today. Not about what happened to get to that point.

Originally Posted by Rouger2

To me there is enough evidence to know there was a creator and not have to rely on faith. I think that is important to know.

I guess we have differing opinions as what constitutes evidence. The fact that everything just "works" to me isn't evidence of a creator because it is an application of everyday understanding to something way outside everyday knowledge.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

That is a horrible use of occams razor. and wrong to boot.

From wiki:

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

In what way is it wrong? (Other than attempting to explain something we have no idea about)

[Thomas Crown]

"Just exists" is not the explanation with the fewest assumptions. In fact, it has the most assumptions.

[Rouger2]

Okay forget evolution. Life had to start somewhere and there is your impossibility, even scientist say that it cannot happen, and I don't care how many millions years you have, it will not and did not happen without a creator, maybe you cannot see the complexity in non life becoming life but it is there, and then that simple life evolving to a human impossible.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

"Just exists" is not the explanation with the fewest assumptions. In fact, it has the most assumptions.

I'm not sure how that is.

1) The universe just exists and has always existed

or

2) God just exists and has always existed; He created the universe.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Okay forget evolution. Life had to start somewhere and there is your impossibility, even scientist say that it cannot happen, and I don't care how many millions years you have, it will not and did not happen without a creator, maybe you cannot see the complexity in non life becoming life but it is there, and then that simple life evolving to a human impossible.

The problem is you are using a "god-of-gaps" argument. Just because we don't know how it happened does not mean that a creator is automatically valid.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The problem is you are using a "god-of-gaps" argument. Just because we don't know how it happened does not mean that a creator is automatically valid.

It is not that I don't know how it happened. I don't, but I know that from every thing that I have learned something so complicated as life evolving from non life could not have happened. It is not just me though some of the greatest minds in science have tried and, have not even come close to making life. That is part of the evidence that I use in knowing I am right in believing there had to be a creator to help evolution along.