Questions for creationists

[Jack_www]

Etherland I have just read all your posts. I have not had the time yet to give a proper response to them yet. One of thing biggist reasons why I do not believe that the theory of evolution is true is that I have I really hard time believing life can arise form non living matter on its on by accendent. How can this have occured?? As far as I know this is not happening on the earth right now and, no one has ever seen it occur naturally.

For the theory of evolution to be true, the spontanous generation of life must also be true.

Anther thing is that I want to first focus on weather or not life was created or not before I start debating on weather or not what is written in the Bible is true or not. Do you guys think we should start a new thread on this, since this one is getting pretty big??

[Ethelred]

One of thing biggist reasons why I do not believe that the theory of evolution is true is that I have I really hard time believing life can arise form non living matter on its on by accendent.

Thats more like a justification for going with creation. No one knows how likely or unlikely biogenesis is. The people that say its likely because of how quickly life started on earth are speculating but they do have a point. A point based on the assumption that there wasn't something that started life in a non-spontaneous manner. I use that circumlocution because a creator is not required for life to start in a less than spontaneous manner.

Life could be spread from planet to planet for instance by natural means. Or there could be a inteligence that is doing it deliberatly. The inteligence could have arisen from another planet where life did spontaneously arise but happened long after the planet settleled down. With billions of years of reactions life would have thousands of times more chance of arising spontaneously.

However it happened life started on Earth shortly after it became possible. The earliest signs are some rocks from 3.86 billion years ago and that is believed to be very shortly after the surface cooled enough for liquid water.

For the theory of evolution to be true, the spontanous generation of life must also be true.

Let me take this first because its easier.

That just isn't true. Evolution is the process of LIFE adapting to its environment. There is no evolution till some sort of self-replication begins. Not self-replication like a crystal either for there must be room for change.

You are equating evolution with the beginning of life. It doesn't work till AFTER that. Even if a god started life on Earth evolution would still exist. Its inherent in how life works on Earth. There simply is no way for self-replication to occur without evolution as long as there are copying errors. Only a cloning lifeform could have the property of reproduction without change and it would not be able to adapt to change. No sexual life could possibly exist without evolving over time.

Errors happen. Genetic material is exchanged and rearanged by sexual reproduction even without errors of copying. Bad changes will be selected out. Good changes will increase in the population. There is no way around this. That is all that evolution is. The gradual accumulation of change over time while adapting to the environment.

If the gene pool is small change can occur more rapidly and if the environment changes then changes in the gene pool will be driven towards adaptation to the new environment. This is as inevitable as a the movement of the Moon to a higher orbit due to tides. You can't see it except over time yet it has to occur. The only real questions about evolution is the details.

When did man seperate from the other apes? Is punctated equilibrium more important than gradualism? Can speciation occur without isolation into different environments? How did sexual reproduction arise and what is its adavantage over asexual reproduction? Why don't human women go into heat like most other mammals?

Yet ALL of these signifacant questions about evolution implicitly accept the FACT of evolution. We can see it. We can see change in the past. We can even see change in the present. We can see mutations and the forces of selection on them. There is no doubt that evolution occurs in the minds of any remotely competent biological scientist.

How can this have occured?? As far as I know this is not happening on the earth right now and, no one has ever seen it occur naturally.

No can see it occur naturally on this planet. Life is allready here and it is entrenched. There is little free floating organic material for some primitive self-reproducing molecule to use as raw material. It only has to happen once for evolution to get started on adaptation and radiation. Soon all that free raw material would be tied up. It wouldn't take long when we are talking about exponential growth rates. How it could have occured though is an all together different question than why we don't see it happening.

How? We don't know is the short answer. We may never know. Small molecules that are good to eat don't last long in the environment. It is unlikely that we will ever find signs of what life was like before cells arose. It may even be that life started in a lipid envelope that formed naturly. There just is no way to know.

Experiments can done on possible means. People have done experiments on lipid envolopes recently. Self reproducing molecules have been made but its unlikely they have any resemblance to the first to arise naturely. The early environment can be guessed at. An educated guess but still a guess. We don't know enough yet to be sure what the early Earth was like exactly.

Its possible that the odds of a self replicating molecule occuring is very low. If so we won't create one in the lab just by putting the right ingredients under the right conditions. Yet it could still have happened in the real world.

A lab test would be a limited experiment with thousands of reactions in a vial or a hundred vials, maybe even thousands over days or even years. However in the early Earth it could be gigatons of material reacting in terratons of water over the entire earth. Not just for hours or day or even years but for milenia.

If the odds were a million to one for a specific reaction to occur it would happen almost instantly with the whole earth as a reaction chamber. If the odds were trillions to one for it occur in a given one cubic inch volume per second it would take longer to occur but enventually it would occur. Its a big planet. There is a lot water. A million years takes 31,536,000,000,000 seconds. Thats 31 trillion seconds. 31 times the length of time for a 50% chance for one cubic inch.

Of course the odds could be a thousand times that and life would still arise easily in a million years with all the earth to work instead of a single cubic each. So nowadays creationist like to invent numbers out of thin air with lots of zeros. They spend no effort at all on justifying the basic assumptions they make. The whole idea is to tack on more zeros. Only thing is the molecules the biologists have made in the labs are a very tiny fraction of the size the creationists are claiming are needed.

They usualy like to use hemoglobin as an example protein. The say it can't work if it isn't perfect. Which is either preposterous ignorance or a plain lie. We humans use seven different types of hemoglobin. Six of them before birth. Not counting at least two known mutations that work poorly but do work. And thats just human hemoglobin and hemoglobin is a complex molecule that has evolved over hundreds of millions of years for high efficiency. Its not what anyone would expect for a first self reproducing molecule.

[Jack_www]

Tell me if this is right or not. Does not theory of evolution hold that life came about on its own with out the help of an intelligent force? I understand to be the basic foundation for the theory of evolution.

Lets just say amino acids were able to be formed and survived and made it into the ocean of the earth. Could protiens have formed, which of course basic componds of life here on earth.
First problem I see with this is that water breaks down things, dissloves them. Also how could the amino acids once in the water get the needed energy for further chemical reactions which are needed if any protiens are to be formed.

Also anther thing to considered is that there are 100 different amino acids, but only 20 are used by living things. Also of these 20 all of them are "left handed." In the experiment Miller conducted he got an even distrubution of amino acids between right and left handed amino acids. Also the odds of the most simplists of protiens to form on its own is 10 to the 113 power.
Also this is more than the total estimated atoms in the Universe.
If we look at a cell, it need around 2000 types of protiens to function. The chances of this cell getting by chance is one in 10 to the 40000 power. Pretty high odds if you ask me.(Evolution Form Space, p 24 ).
Lets just say that the most simple protein to form 2 billion years.
Lets say that every second that there is a chance for this protein to form, the possible times it has to form would be about 6.3 to the 16 power. This still would a large odds for even most simplist of proteins to form.
I dont see with these large odds how this can be.

Also I will conceed the point that scientist could get self reproducing moculces to form. But this was done in a lab with controlled envirment. Could these mocules formed on the earth billions of years ago under the conditions that most scientist believed to have existed then? Also scientist were there to set up the right conditions for these mocules to form, thus these mocules had some short of outside influence acting on then so to speak.

Also anther thing that you might want to consider. The most advanced supercomputer needs someone to design it and build its parts and put it togather. Humans have not even come close to making a truely thinking machine. The human brain is far more advanced then any suprecomputer and can store billions of volumes of informaion in it. It is a truely amazing thing. Yet this somehow came about be a series of accendents?

[Jack_www]

One question I would like to ask, what is one of the biggest reasons why you dont believe that someone created life?

[Jack_www]

Anther thing to consider, the physical laws of the Universe. With these laws we can predict were planets and stars will be at any given time. The law of gravity and many of Newtons laws we know how to put stalites in orbit around the earth, and calucate many other things. These laws take a long time to study in school and we do not know all the physical laws that govern the Universe. How could these physical laws come about on acciendent?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Tell me if this is right or not. Does not theory of evolution hold that life came about on its own with out the help of an intelligent force? I understand to be the basic foundation for the theory of evolution.

The birth of life on this planet has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

The chances of this cell getting by chance is one in 10 to the 40000 power. Pretty high odds if you ask me.(Evolution Form Space, p 24 ).

Have you considered that odds are a minor part, because molecules and proteins work under the chemical laws. It has very little to do whit chances and odds. Besides, even if the odds were really bad for cell getting by chance, it would _still_ be possible.

One question I would like to ask, what is one of the biggest reasons why you dont believe that someone created life?

The reason why I don't _believe that is that there is NO evidence to support that claim. If some evidence is found I'll change my "religion". Then again, I wouldn't have to believe in it, I would _know_ it. Just like I konow today that evolution is true, and that I have no Idea how life started on this planet. I'm a man enough to admit it. I dont' know! But I sure won't start believing in something that hasn't been proved.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-

The birth of life on this planet has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

I know that the threoy of evolution deals mostly with changes occuring in the DNA, that the through survival of fittest that certain changes are selected and eveunatlly produce new species.
But many who believe in this theory also hold that life came form on living matter on its own. I would think that this would at least have something to do with evolution.

Have you considered that odds are a minor part, because molecules and proteins work under the chemical laws. It has very little to do whit chances and odds. Besides, even if the odds were really bad for cell getting by chance, it would _still_ be possible.

This would be true if that were the only possible way for life to come about, but that is not the only explaination. When I look at it is more likely for someone to have created life then for it to have come about on its own.
Please explain to me how chemical laws aftect this?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Jack_www
But many who believe in this theory also hold that life came form on living matter on its own.

That is an another field of science. Many people actually believe many things at the same time.

This would be true if that were the only possible way for life to come about, but that is not the only explaination. When I look at it is more likely for someone to have created life then for it to have come about on its own.
Please explain to me how chemical laws aftect this?

Something creating life is a good alternative for abiogenesis, but it explains everything in such a simple way that i beg to differ.
Chemical laws control what molecules and chemical compounds can and can't do. Odds are almost nonexistent in this.

[Logical Realist]

Lung:

I say "live and let live", and if they insist of closing their minds to anything beyond the scope of the bible, so be it.

Why do you then get involved in this debate?

Of course, their feeble attempts to convert those who base their beliefs on knowledge are destined to fail, so we have nothing to fear.

Destined to fail, eh? Teachers at some of the local high schools in this area are afraid to mention evolutionary theory and so will skip over the subject. In light of this I'd say your optimism was unwarranted.

I think the big difference is creationists place their faith in religious institutions in the absence of knowledge, while evolutionists place their faith in knowledge and the promise of science to uncover truths not yet revealed.

Evolutionists don't have to place faith in either evolution or science to find answers. There is overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory and science has found answers which are based on solid evidence. The conflict is thus not so much, faith in creation vs "faith" in science but one of evidence vs a religious superstition that pretends to be scientific.

I must say that putting faith in creation is much more promising with the promise of an after-life, but the bombardment of evidence to the contrary makes that faith seem more and more delusional.

I'd hardly call the prospect of hellfire promising. Also by "promsing" if you really mean comforting you might be right for some....but what I'm talking about here is truth-value and in respect to that the belief has very little promise whatsoever.

In light of this, it's no wonder many people prefer to not know the complete truth. After all, the shattering of such illusions would be quite devastating to the unprepared!

Well then its a good things I'm part of the elite "prepared" who can handle the truths those too "unprepared" are incapable of grasping.

But back to reality: Do you really think that the abaondoment of creationism will really lead to some sort of psychological breakdown? Or a plague of depression?

I for one really doubt it. I doubt people really take that much comfort from the creationist position, and I doubt that the truth of evolution would really disturb anyone enough to warrant that we allow a superstition to run rampant. especially when it wishes to parade itself as legitamite science.

Do you ever stop to ask yourself whether or not the truth of our origins is worth preserving, no matter how "uncomfortable" it might make a very small minority?

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Logical Realist:
It is thus by logic that one defeats such skepticism, not by arbitrary dictums.

You cannot prove absolute skepticism wrong, first, because it denies you the use of logic (in the case of Descartes), but also the use of a set of axioms. You can only show that it doesn't lead to anything, and so virtually any other system is superior (and if only because it can be proven wrong).

Originally posted by Logical Realist:
Descartes main problem lies in his denial of logical principles then his claim that he can know this with certainty "I think therefore I am". If you really examine his statement though it doesn't hold water. His whole argument of " I think therefore I am" is that, "if I wasn't and I thought", it would be contradictory, for a non-existent thing cannot think, Descartes imagined that an "evil God" capable of decieving his senses and logic, still couldn't decieve Descartes about his own existence, for to decieve someone, that person must exist.So even if there was an evil God, Descartes could know of one things with certainty: that he exists.

Here we are at a typical problem of philosophy: The lack of definitions. "To think" can be treated as something quite obvious (at the moment, I hope). But what is "to exist"? If you define "existing" as "having some property" (which is probably difficult in itself), then the "I think therefore I am" is simply the application of a definition (I have the property to think. If you doubt I am thinking: I have the property to believe to think). This is at least not what is classically thought of as application of a logic argument. It uses the mechanisms of logic, however.

About "deceived by an evil God": We don't need it as soon as we accept the evolutionary theory. We perceive having a logic. This is formed in an evolutionary process (even if mostly traded by education, this doesn't change the argument). There is no reason to be sure that logic is an universal truth, or even that it exactly matches a property of nature. We only know it works quite well as a system in itself (Mathematics being the biggest test), and that it works quite well when dealing with nature (tested by natural sciences). There is no guarantee of an universal truth.

Apart of that we are tied to logic. We cannot build a different system (when you change logic tables, it's changing of definitions, not of logic itself), the best thing we could do is to refuse using it. If we refuse using logic, we don't arrive at anything, even not at disproving Descartes' sentence. If we accept logic, "I think therefore I am" is true (trying to use most natural definitions of "thinking" and "existence"). This works also if our logic is distorted (in the sense that it doesn't reflect any truth exceeding the personal frame).

[Ethelred]

Bloody Shockwave installer shut down my browser without asking. Lost several paragraphs. Macromedia needs to learn manners.

Tell me if this is right or not. Does not theory of evolution hold that life came about on its own with out the help of an intelligent force? I understand to be the basic foundation for the theory of evolution.

Well it isn't. I did answer that in my previous post.

Evolution is about LIFE. That is evolution by natural selection. No life no evolution. Pretty simple really. What you have there is a typical creationist ploy to change definitions and then attack what they created as if was the original.

Now creationists don't like the idea of biogenesis either but they really have no reason to combine the two seperate ideas except to obfuscate things.


Thats shorter than before. I hate losing stuff I wrote like that.

Lets just say amino acids were able to be formed and survived and made it into the ocean of the earth. Could protiens have formed, which of course basic componds of life here on earth.

Two amino acids come into proximity in the primeval ocean. They exchange electrons release energy and bond. Instant protein.

Proteins are not necessarrily the basic compound of life anyway. RNA is a better candidate for the earliest self-reproducing compounds. It can store information and do real chemistry unlike DNA or proteins which are only good at one of those things each.

RNA = Jack of all trades.

First problem I see with this is that water breaks down things, dissloves them.

Would you be alive if that was true? You wouldn't. There would be a pool of water and disasociated chemical elements where you are now if that was to suddenly become a law of the universe.

Also how could the amino acids once in the water get the needed energy for further chemical reactions which are needed if any protiens are to be formed.

Well they could get energy simply by engaging in exothermic reactions with each other. Or they could get it from electical sources like Miller was doing with his simulated lightning.

It not exactly hard to get. Other chemicals could provide energy like hydrogen sulphide which is produced in geo-thermal vents.

Also anther thing to considered is that there are 100 different amino acids, but only 20 are used by living things.

I don't know about the 100 but its more like 24 that are used. WE only use 20. Some obscure lifeforms use the other four. Makes thing simpler anyway. To many different types in use would make things less robust due to chemical similarity. Its likely that the 20 used in most life were the 20 most prevelent when life got started.

Also of these 20 all of them are "left handed." In the experiment Miller conducted he got an even distrubution of amino acids between right and left handed amino acids.

So ignore all the right handed ones. They can change handedness over time anyway. When they are left handed they get used by the left-handed self-reproducing molecules. Its not a problem. Soon there are only left hands around the place.

Like I didn't expect what comes next. I alluded to this in my last post.

Also the odds of the most simplists of protiens to form on its own is 10 to the 113 power.

So where did you copy that from? Never mind its bogus.

Combine two amino acids and you have a protein. ANY two. A very simple one but a protein nonethless.

Someone is pretending that the protein must be a specific one. It only has to be a self-reproducing one. It doesn't even have to be protein. Its likely it was RNA or some other similar molecule. No one nows how simple it was. So there is no way at all to say what the odds were. That number you have was invented simply to make it look impossible.

There could be billions of possible molecules. There may be very short chains that will do the job. The shorter the chain the higher the odds. The more chains that will work the higher the odds that one will form.

Also this is more than the total estimated atoms in the Universe.

More than the sub-atomic particles. Which is the reason that number was pulled out of thin air. It has no meaning since NO ONE knows just how small and just how complex the original self-reproducing molecule was. The chain could be quite short. A few dozen amino proteins maybe less sounds fairly reasonable and it need not be a specific few dozen. Just any that will self reproduce.

Modern proteins have evolved since life started. For 3.8 billion years the molecules of life have been refined and increased in complexity. The size they are today is no reflection on how large they were at the start. There are some very short proteins used in life.

If we look at a cell, it need around 2000 types of protiens to function.

If we look at a cell we are not looking at the beginning of life.

The chances of this cell getting by chance is one in 10 to the 40000 power. Pretty high odds if you ask me.(Evolution Form Space, p 24 ).

Yes but those odds have ZERO to do with life getting started. The author most likely knew it too. Cells are not needed to get life started. Nor is all that modern molecular machinry. Nor was that a remotely resonable choice of cells for an example. We ourselves only have 30,000 genes and thats the most of any animal. The simplest presently living bacteria has 470 genes. Ancient bacteria are likely to have been simpler. So that 2000 number was chosen for usual reason. To add zeroes.

Life is unlikely to have started with a cell. No with multiple compounds. Just one compound that can reproduce itself not quite perfectly will do to start. The rest comes through evolution.

Here is a nice link regarding a small self replicating peptide:

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

Sample text.

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution (see Fig. 1 on page 525).

Of course it only works under special lab conditions.

Then there is that Miller guy you mentioned from the 50's

Bottom of the page

http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0001/cooking.htm

Sample

The answer could be a combination molecule, a hybrid of peptides and RNA that existed in the early years of Earth’s formation but eventually died out once it lost its usefulness. One candidate is a peptide-nucleic acid hybrid, known as PNA. This molecule has a peptide backbone with RNA-like units sticking out of it. Bada and others, including amino-acid pioneer Stanley Miller, now at the University of California, San Diego, believe PNA was the first living entity. "The beauty of PNA is that its backbone is easy to make under early Earth conditions," says Bada.

Recently, Miller showed that PNA can arise spontaneously from the ingredients available on early Earth. Unlike RNA, PNA is easy to make. Unlike amino acids, PNA carries lots of information. And unlike both of them, PNA is symmetrical so it doesn’t have the chirality problem.


Sometimes scientists don't do all their best work when they are young.

Rybozymes that can copy RNA

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01n.html

An interview of Dr. Miller in '96

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

I can't get to his homepage at the moment. It should be at UC San Diego and the site is being recalcitrent.

Lets say that every second that there is a chance for this protein to form, the possible times it has to form would be about 6.3 to the 16 power. This still would a large odds for even most simplist of proteins to form.

I couldn't see what that two billion number was coming from. It seemed to have been invented like all the other numbers you used.

Well if you chose the odds to get impossilbe results thats no suprise. So how about I make that number even worse by rounding off 6.3 to a full 10.

We get 10 x10 ^16 = 10,000,000,000,000,000

OF course that is NOT taking acount the volume of the earths ocean. You completely left out a per unit volume dimension so I choose this one. Per CC or cubic centimeter which is fairly standard unit in chemistry. You invented your numbers so I will invent the one you left out.

A cubic kilometer contains 10,00,000,000,000,000 cubic centimeters. Hmmm thats the number I rounded up to from yours. What a nice coincidence, sure would look funny if I had picked the starting number. How did you pick your number?

Well even without talking about more than one second we allready get a 50/50 shot. Not exactly large odds is it? Thats per second. For just one cubic kilometer not the whole ocean. With millions of years to fool around with thats a lot of seconds. Still think the number is all that huge?

Also I will conceed the point that scientist could get self reproducing moculces to form. But this was done in a lab with controlled envirment. Could these mocules formed on the earth billions of years ago under the conditions that most scientist believed to have existed then?

Its a big ocean. Why not?

Also scientist were there to set up the right conditions for these mocules to form, thus these mocules had some short of outside influence acting on then so to speak.

Thats the damned if you do and damned if don't trick. If you don't test it then creationists say you have no evidence and if you do test it they say you did it in the lab. So which is it to be? Experiments or hiding from the evidence? Creationists are real good at hiding from evidence. They don't like real research at all.

The main place they pretend to do their own research is less than 100 miles south of me. ICR is in the San Diego area. Same as Dr. Miller.

most advanced supercomputer needs someone to design it and build its parts and put it togather. Humans have not even come close to making a truely thinking machine.

You sure are impatient. We took 3.86 billions years to get the point where could make a computer. 50 years is nothing in comparison. We evolved we weren't designed. If we were designed we sure did have a bad designer. We get clogged arteries, rotten teeth, disease, bad eyesight, and we kill each other for the hell of it. I see no evidence that we were designed.

We aren't built. We grow. There is an enormous difference. Computers are designed to the last detail but we follow a set of GENERAL instructions. If one leg is a little short we compensate. Its not at all the same and the comparison is bogus. Nevertheless give humans a tiny fraction of the 3.8 billion years evolution had and I don't think it will be at all unlikely for us to make a thinking machine.

Yet this somehow came about be a series of accendents?

Only the changes are random. The selection is by the environment and that is not the same as random accidents. And nothing ever guaranteed that we would be the result. We are an accident. There could easily be NO ONE to ask questions. Or an altogether different species asking that same exact question and snearing while setting traps for those annoying little primates in the orchard.

And that mention of a super computer. Its the equivalent of a modern cell like the one you used for attempt to show excessive complexity. The earliest computer was much less complex. Vastly less. Yet is was far more complex the least complex computer possible. Alan Turing's theoretical general computer was just a paper tape a punch, a sensor to read the tape and a simple set of switches to act on the holes in the tape. Very few switches. That Turning Machine is the man made machine equivalent of the first life on Earth.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
One question I would like to ask, what is one of the biggest reasons why you dont believe that someone created life?

The biggest reason is simple. I see no need to believe in a creator.

A belief in a creator is just a response to not knowing all the answers. If you had been raised without any exposure to religion would you believe in a creator. I mean NO exposure, not raised agnostic.

Every claim of proof of god that I have ever seen has always come down to 'we don't know all the answers therefor god exists'. Which is what your previous post was doing. Saying we don't know everything. Heck basicaly it even said that we don't know things we do know.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
How could these physical laws come about on acciendent?

How could a god arise by accident?

You were again saying we don't know there for there is a god.

A god only adds another layer of complexity. Everything you asked plus the same things about the hypothetical god.

Now there may be a god. I simply don't see any reason to think there is one. Except wishfull thinking.

I DON'T wish for the god of the Bible. If you really look at the things Jehovah did you will see something not at all admirable. Forget the sugar coated kiddy versions. Read the real thing.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ethelred


How could a god arise by accident?

You were again saying we don't know there for there is a god.

A god only adds another layer of complexity. Everything you asked plus the same things about the hypothetical god.

Now there may be a god. I simply don't see any reason to think there is one. Except wishfull thinking.

I DON'T wish for the god of the Bible. If you really look at the things Jehovah did you will see something not at all admirable. Forget the sugar coated kiddy versions. Read the real thing.

why need a god to arrise at all?

in physics we have cause and effect (which also puts a damper to the notion of physics begining but anyway(yes I know there are theories, but while they are cool they are highly speculative)), but god would not need (in fact could be defined to not be) to be limited by the rules of physics

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ethelred


The biggest reason is simple. I see no need to believe in a creator.

A belief in a creator is just a response to not knowing all the answers. If you had been raised without any exposure to religion would you believe in a creator. I mean NO exposure, not raised agnostic.

Every claim of proof of god that I have ever seen has always come down to 'we don't know all the answers therefor god exists'. Which is what your previous post was doing. Saying we don't know everything. Heck basicaly it even said that we don't know things we do know.

observer = somone who has never heard of the conception of a god

yes, it is logical since observing the physical world points to a beggining, but nothing is obvious in physics to the casual observer which would cause the beggining

now would an observer would had all the knowledge and understanding of our most brilliant physicists at the moment of their birth beleive in a creator?

I think that answer to that is different, which would be some percentage either way

Jon Miller