"Furthermore, if you assume that God has always existed and wasn't himself created, I can equally assume that something, but not a being of any kind, always existed which caused the universe as we know it to come into being."
I agree Out of Nothing comes Nothing. Something had to always have existed out side of the dimension of time and space. What you call it depends on your worldview.
I heard about those, there is the 1953 Miller Laboratory Experiment with the amino acids and that one recently where scientists think that life may have started in deep space http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/vesicle.html which sounds more like the one you are referring to.
I think there are problems with these types of experiments, because it takes the application lots of intelligence to prove that life started without intelligence.
Then you have the problems of the statistics of just 1 cell coming about by chance and the numbers are obscene, 10 to the 100th power or something like that.
Worse still you have the chicken and egg situation again. Proteins can not form without DNA, DNA can not form with proteins.
"Because fossils showing a progression of types of animals and plants have been found in rock strata which have been carefully dated in a range of ways show that life on this planet has changed over billions of years."
Sadly a lack of transitional forms in this area leads me to doubt the fossil record.
The Radioisotope dating method also has its problems and has widely varying results.
"Because analysis DNA has shown that all species are related, and the way that they are related is by descent from a common ancestor."
It could mean that DNA is the code by which living things are made. Evidence of a Designer who created an information system for encoding life? As you have the ask the question how did DNA evolve, which is about as easy to answer as who did the "complex" single cell first come about.
"Because we have actually observed evolution happen, both in microbes and in bird and insect species."
This is the macro/micro evolution debate. A pug mates with a beagle you get a puggle. But its still a dog. You never get a cat. A Zebra with a Donkey, you get a Zonkey but its still part of the Horse kind. And the lack of transitional fossils suggest that these gradual changes did not occur as Darwin theorizes.
"Much of these attacks are based on simple ignorance, but many are from a plain refusal to accept a level of evidence that any rational person would accept in any other area of science, philosophy, or life."
You can pretty much turn this statement on its head. The problem really is the not the evidence, but how the evidence is interpreted. If you exclude the possibility that there is a God or somekind of intelligence behind what we can observe today, as many scientists do, of course there would have to have to be somekind of Big Bang Evolutionery process to explain all of what we see. However, if, as some equally qualified scientists believe, that there is a God or Intelligent Designer you can interpret the fossil evidence, geological evidence, DNA and all the rest of it to show that we are here by design and that it defies rational thinking to think it could be otherwise.
Also there are some interesting theories from PhD Scientists that show how our galaxy or even our planet could be at the center of the universe. But as per the previous paragraph, if someone is trying to defend an athiestic worldview, then these theories would have to be rejected in favor of models that support the Big Bang (as Carl Sagan devoted an entire book doing). However, as a Christian for example, your worldview allows for the fact that God tells us we are at the center of cosmos, and why not, if he was there when it was created he would know and could tell us. In light of the Christian worldview this is reasonable. If whiteholes, blackholes, general relativity and quantized red shifts are your thing it makes pretty interesting stuff
So as always it gets back to the old chicken or egg situation. I appreciated your response to my question though.
Yes this is true, and you'll be pleased to know the apostle Paul himself agrees with you in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 Verse 19 in particular.
12. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14. and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17. and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
20. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
So there you have it prove that Christ did not rise from the dead and Christianity is finished.
Actually more people have been killed in the name of atheism in the last 100 years than religion for all of time before that. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. Thats over 100 million people.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey thanks for the link I'll take a read
Here's one for you http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
"Furthermore, if you assume that God has always existed and wasn't himself created, I can equally assume that something, but not a being of any kind, always existed which caused the universe as we know it to come into being."
I agree Out of Nothing comes Nothing. Something had to always have existed out side of the dimension of time and space. What you call it depends on your worldview.
I heard about those, there is the 1953 Miller Laboratory Experiment with the amino acids and that one recently where scientists think that life may have started in deep space http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/vesicle.html which sounds more like the one you are referring to.
I think there are problems with these types of experiments, because it takes the application lots of intelligence to prove that life started without intelligence.
Then you have the problems of the statistics of just 1 cell coming about by chance and the numbers are obscene, 10 to the 100th power or something like that.
Worse still you have the chicken and egg situation again. Proteins can not form without DNA, DNA can not form with proteins.
Not 100% sure of the source of this website, as I'm also not sure of your sources. But this is interesting if true:
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html
"Because fossils showing a progression of types of animals and plants have been found in rock strata which have been carefully dated in a range of ways show that life on this planet has changed over billions of years."
Sadly a lack of transitional forms in this area leads me to doubt the fossil record.
The Radioisotope dating method also has its problems and has widely varying results.
"Because analysis DNA has shown that all species are related, and the way that they are related is by descent from a common ancestor."
It could mean that DNA is the code by which living things are made. Evidence of a Designer who created an information system for encoding life? As you have the ask the question how did DNA evolve, which is about as easy to answer as who did the "complex" single cell first come about.
"Because we have actually observed evolution happen, both in microbes and in bird and insect species."
This is the macro/micro evolution debate. A pug mates with a beagle you get a puggle. But its still a dog. You never get a cat. A Zebra with a Donkey, you get a Zonkey but its still part of the Horse kind. And the lack of transitional fossils suggest that these gradual changes did not occur as Darwin theorizes.
"Much of these attacks are based on simple ignorance, but many are from a plain refusal to accept a level of evidence that any rational person would accept in any other area of science, philosophy, or life."
You can pretty much turn this statement on its head. The problem really is the not the evidence, but how the evidence is interpreted. If you exclude the possibility that there is a God or somekind of intelligence behind what we can observe today, as many scientists do, of course there would have to have to be somekind of Big Bang Evolutionery process to explain all of what we see. However, if, as some equally qualified scientists believe, that there is a God or Intelligent Designer you can interpret the fossil evidence, geological evidence, DNA and all the rest of it to show that we are here by design and that it defies rational thinking to think it could be otherwise.
Also there are some interesting theories from PhD Scientists that show how our galaxy or even our planet could be at the center of the universe. But as per the previous paragraph, if someone is trying to defend an athiestic worldview, then these theories would have to be rejected in favor of models that support the Big Bang (as Carl Sagan devoted an entire book doing). However, as a Christian for example, your worldview allows for the fact that God tells us we are at the center of cosmos, and why not, if he was there when it was created he would know and could tell us. In light of the Christian worldview this is reasonable. If whiteholes, blackholes, general relativity and quantized red shifts are your thing it makes pretty interesting stuff
So as always it gets back to the old chicken or egg situation. I appreciated your response to my question though.
Yes this is true, and you'll be pleased to know the apostle Paul himself agrees with you in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 Verse 19 in particular.
12. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14. and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17. and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
20. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
So there you have it prove that Christ did not rise from the dead and Christianity is finished.
"However, it is a pretty safe bet to say that a few things are unlikely to be disproven, and evolution is one of those."
Oh so evolution has been proven as a fact now??? If it is been proven then why is there such a debate over the evidence, or lack there of?
Actually more people have been killed in the name of atheism in the last 100 years than religion for all of time before that. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. Thats over 100 million people.