Are there any arguments for creation...

[loveofourlord]

I have never doubted that life was possible.
My question remains.....life is difficult to sustain, impossible to reproduce, and found virtually everywhere on earth. What function does it serve? Why does life exist? Why is it so prevalent, and still so fragile?

There must be a scientific reason why. It's obscene that we don't have one.

ummm what? none of that makes sense, thats like a 5 year old being asked, "Why is there a rock in that field." and they say, "It's there so deer can scratch their backs." I'm not sure what your basing half those questions upon, hard to sustain? Once life takes hold it does quiet well, just have to look at the islands where life only showed up in the last century there by people or other methods. What function? Life is life, something deeper, god wanted to create the world and give rise to some intelligent life, didn't have a goal, just wanted to see what came about.

There is that old saying, "Life finds a way." and, "Life abhors a vacuum." single lives are fragile, but as a whole it's not very fragile.

 

[SkyWriting]

ummm what? none of that makes sense, thats like a 5 year old being asked, "Why is there a rock in that field."

There is always a reason why a rock is lying in a field.
Why there is erosion, the a rock is white, why it rolls down a hill,
why it's hard, why it's soft. why it's heavy, why it light, why it's pointy.

Your natural explanation for life existing, makes no sense.

 

[SkyWriting]

Science is not equipped to answer "why" questions. The answer to that question must be found in some other way.

The same deceptive answer every single time.

Why there is erosion, why a rock is white, why it's acidic, why it rolls down a hill,
why it's hard, why it's soft, why it's heavy, why it light, why it's pointy.
There is always a reason or a theory for why a natural event happens.
Even why people run and hide from the question of why life exists.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is that old saying, "Life finds a way." and, "Life abhors a vacuum." single lives are fragile, but as a whole it's not very fragile.

Except that there is no life in any vacuum, or anywhere off of the earth.

So what would cause life to form where none existed?

 

[Speedwell]

The same deceptive answer every single time.

Why there is erosion, why a rock is white, why it's acidic, why it rolls down a hill,
why it's hard, why it's soft, why it's heavy, why it light, why it's pointy.
There is always a reason or a theory for why a natural event happens.

No, there is always a reason or a theory for how a natural event happens.

Even why people run and hide from the question of why life exists.

No, they don't "run and hide." Scientists are working very hard to find out how life came into existence. Right now they don't know, but they're certainly not hiding from the issue.

As to why there is life, that is a different kind of question altogether.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same deceptive answer every single time.

Why there is erosion, why a rock is white, why it's acidic, why it rolls down a hill,
why it's hard, why it's soft, why it's heavy, why it light, why it's pointy.
There is always a reason or a theory for why a natural event happens.
Even why people run and hide from the question of why life exists.

Do you mean why did abiogenesis occur? Probably due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Did you ever read the article that I linked after your failed biased Google search?

 

[fwGod]

This is irrelevant though. Not having a specific scientific answer for something doesn't automatically validate the alternative. All it is is pointing to a gap in human knowledge. So what?

Besides which, origin of life research is ongoing and scientists continually are learning new things about it.

The creation record in Genesis is not meant to be scientific. It's meant to be information to the believer who loves God to know what He was doing in the beginning. In Hebrews the writer referred to it saying "It's by faith that we understand the universe to have been formed by the word of God".

The subsequent science gives the academics of what God did.. the science is detached and clinical while the Bible makes it a lot more personal than saying that it all began with a big bang. The scientific answer is the gap of human knowledge which has no awareness of God. Science speaks of cause and effect, but atheism uses a causeless cause to explain an effect.

Are you asking your question because you seek to believe that God exists, or are you just seeking something to argue about?

 

[Gene2memE]

Science speaks of cause and effect, but atheism uses a causeless cause to explain an effect.

Atheism does nothing of the sort.

Atheism is a response to the claims of theists that some god or gods exists. That response is (depending on the atheist) "I don't believe you" or "There is no such thing as god or gods ".

Atheism has no beliefs, no dogmas, no worldview and no requirements apart from the absence of theistic belief.

I know atheists that reject evolution. They're still atheists.
I know atheists that reject the notion of the big bang. They're still atheists.

Atheism, by itself, gets you to precisely zero beliefs about the nature of the origin of the universe. Although it gets you to plenty of non-beliefs.

 

[fwGod]

Atheism does nothing of the sort.

Atheism is a response to the claims of theists that some god or gods exists. That response is (depending on the atheist) "I don't believe you" or "There is no such thing as god or gods ".

Atheism has no beliefs, no dogmas, no worldview and no requirements apart from the absence of theistic belief.

I know atheists that reject evolution. They're still atheists.
I know atheists that reject the notion of the big bang. They're still atheists.

Atheism, by itself, gets you to precisely zero beliefs about the nature of the origin of the universe. Although it gets you to plenty of non-beliefs.

Oh please, I went to public school and heard the lesson that what exists is the result of "the big bang". That is a world view. Atheism takes faith to believe that something, an effect, came from nothing which goes against the scientific rule if you will that effects always have a cause.

Don't assume that because I'm a Christian that I must of been born one from my mother's womb.. or that I was taught at home by Christian materials and faith based school books.. or don't think that I've never watched secular tv. I've lived in the world plenty enough that I know that Atheism big bang violates the "cause and effect".

I was speaking in general on that so it's still valid regardless of atheists who reject something of atheism. The thing about believe or lack of belief is that lack of belief in one thing means that there has to be something else to believe. Non belief is actually an impossibility because believing is just the way of human nature. For instance fear of the growling dog is believing that the dog will bite you. Fear of flying is believing that the airplane will crash to the ground. It could be called irrational fear but there it is. The fact that it is irrational makes certain that it's belief. It's true when you think about it. As atheists say that Christians are irrational to believe that there is a God whom they have not seen or any evidence of whatsoever.

Worry over getting the coronavirus is believing that you will get sick and die. Panic sets in and you go and buy some extra t.p. when you've already got plenty at home.. because what if you use it up and later the grocery supplies fail.. then what would you do?

Everybody always believes something.. either positive or negative.

 

[Gene2memE]

Oh please, I went to public school and heard the lesson that what exists is the result of "the big bang". That is a world view. Atheism takes faith to believe that something, an effect, came from nothing which goes against the scientific rule if you will that effects always have a cause.

Don't assume that because I'm a Christian that I must of been born one from my mother's womb.. or that I was taught at home by Christian materials and faith based school books.. or don't think that I've never watched secular tv. I've lived in the world plenty enough that I know that Atheism big bang violates the "cause and effect".

Couple of points:

I was born into a Christian household (mixed Anglican and Catholic), only becoming an atheist in my late 20s. Nowhere in my Christian schooling was the Big Bang ever presented as a faith based belief, nor something that ran counter to any of the beliefs of Christianity.

Secular =/= atheism.

The Big Bang hypothesis (actually, the explanation for the observed recession of galaxies) was first formed by a Jesuit priest Georges Lemaitre in the 1920s. It's the best explanation for the observed facts of nature. It appears to be compatible with the beliefs of a majority of Christians.

Nothing about the Big Bang violates "cause and effect". What is states is that prior to the start of the inflationary period (ie, the beginning of the observable universe), the universe existed in a highly dense, near uniform, very hot state. Do we know what started the expansion? No. Are people working on that question? Yes.

At the moment, I'm willing to comfortably admit I don't know why there is an observable universe, nor why it began a rapid expansion about 13.8 billion years ago.

However, nothing I've been taught, hear or read suggests that the Christian Genesis story is even remotely like a successful account of the formation of reality.

As atheists say that Christians are irrational to believe that there is a God whom they have not seen or any evidence of whatsoever.

I've heard plenty of evidence, its just that it has failed completely to overcome basic standards of evidentiary warrant and my own personal levels of skepticism. Whereas the Big Bang hypothesis has much better evidentiary support.

Everybody always believes something.. either positive or negative.

Sure. Belief is a binary (and I consider it involuntary). But its not 'God/No God', that's a false dichotomy. The null position is to hold off belief of either position until sufficient evidence is presented.

I believe that no-one has yet presented me with enough evidence to believe the claim "some god exists". I acknowleged that its possible some god does exist, but all of the specific god claims I've been presented with have failed to past muster to convince me to believe them.

As David Hume said, a wise man apportions his belief to the strength of the evidence.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Why link a comedy source? They do not even understand that abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution. They fail in the title alone.

Either way, it Atheism can't explain the origin of life then it's not viable.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Sorry, but the theory of evolution is simply reality. It is not an escape clause. It does not disprove God. Now it may disprove mistaken versions of God, but if your version of God made a "Flat Earth" then that is a mistaken version as well.

If there is a God then why cannot any believer find reliable evidence for that God? You may claim to "know God" but knowledge is demonstrable. To me it looks as if you only have belief. Now I could explain how we know that evolution is a fact, but you would have to be willing to learn some of the basics of science first. For some reason I doubt if you will do that.

You speak of "overwhelming evidence" and I am betting that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to start there?

Can you please stop equating the Bible with the Flat Earth myth? The Bible doesn't say the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.
Is evolution as scientific as the Earth revolving around the sun? - creation.com

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Couple of points:

I was born into a Christian household (mixed Anglican and Catholic), only becoming an atheist in my late 20s. Nowhere in my Christian schooling was the Big Bang ever presented as a faith based belief, nor something that ran counter to any of the beliefs of Christianity.

Secular =/= atheism.

The Big Bang hypothesis (actually, the explanation for the observed recession of galaxies) was first formed by a Jesuit priest Georges Lemaitre in the 1920s. It's the best explanation for the observed facts of nature. It appears to be compatible with the beliefs of a majority of Christians.

Nothing about the Big Bang violates "cause and effect". What is states is that prior to the start of the inflationary period (ie, the beginning of the observable universe), the universe existed in a highly dense, near uniform, very hot state. Do we know what started the expansion? No. Are people working on that question? Yes.

At the moment, I'm willing to comfortably admit I don't know why there is an observable universe, nor why it began a rapid expansion about 13.8 billion years ago.

However, nothing I've been taught, hear or read suggests that the Christian Genesis story is even remotely like a successful account of the formation of reality.



I've heard plenty of evidence, its just that it has failed completely to overcome basic standards of evidentiary warrant and my own personal levels of skepticism. Whereas the Big Bang hypothesis has much better evidentiary support.



Sure. Belief is a binary (and I consider it involuntary). But its not 'God/No God', that's a false dichotomy. The null position is to hold off belief of either position until sufficient evidence is presented.

I believe that no-one has yet presented me with enough evidence to believe the claim "some god exists". I acknowleged that its possible some god does exist, but all of the specific god claims I've been presented with have failed to past muster to convince me to believe them.

As David Hume said, a wise man apportions his belief to the strength of the evidence.

Well, if we find out what started the expansion, what caused whatever started the expansion? And what caused that? Furthermore, Secular scientists blast the big bang - creation.com

 

[Jimmy D]

Atheism takes faith to believe that something, an effect, came from nothing

Nonsense.

I don’t believe that something came from nothing.

 

[46AND2]

Well, if we find out what started the expansion, what caused whatever started the expansion? And what caused that? Furthermore, Secular scientists blast the big bang - creation.com

...and what caused god? You left that one out for some reason.

 

[fwGod]

Couple of points:

I was born into a Christian household (mixed Anglican and Catholic), only becoming an atheist in my late 20s. Nowhere in my Christian schooling was the Big Bang ever presented as a faith based belief, nor something that ran counter to any of the beliefs of Christianity.

Each person has their own experiences and conclusions.. I could tell that what I was taught in school was directly opposite from what I heard in Sunday school and church services.

Secular =/= atheism.

The Big Bang hypothesis (actually, the explanation for the observed recession of galaxies) was first formed by a Jesuit priest Georges Lemaitre in the 1920s.

I suppose that exposure to that might be from your religious background. I have a Methodist background so I haven't heard that before.

It's the best explanation for the observed facts of nature. It appears to be compatible with the beliefs of a majority of Christians.

I am one of them. The universe is expanding. Like that of the tent curtain mentioned somewhere in the Bible. The expansion was known of by Jews and Christians before 1920. The concept of expansion is within the Jewish teaching of the Sefirot.. a.k.a. the tree of life. One of the elements is wisdom. Which is described in corresponding with a tiny existence like that of the English period (.). Another element is understanding. Which is described in corresponding with the expansion of the universe itself. The (.) wisdom is ever so tiny like a seed with promise of opening up and unfolding like a flower. It's no coincidence that it says "the entrance and unfolding of Your word o Lord is light (the . part) and understanding (the expansion part) to the simple." It's comparative to "the soul prospering", "increasing in the knowledge" of the Bible. The word "know" speaks of a personal inner experience.

"And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother saying, 'know the Lord', for all shall know Me from the least to the greatest of them."

Nothing about the Big Bang violates "cause and effect".

On that point we will have to disagree.

What is states is that prior to the start of the inflationary period (ie, the beginning of the observable universe), the universe existed in a highly dense, near uniform, very hot state. Do we know what started the expansion? No.

Would I be wrong to think that you might mean that none has come up with a satisfactory scientific explanation. But I of course would say however simplistically, that God started it when He said "Light be."

Are people working on that question? Yes.

They at least say that the rate of expansion is according to the speed of light. In that case however long it took to realize that.. Jews and Christians had worked that out a lot sooner.

At the moment, I'm willing to comfortably admit I don't know why there is an observable universe, nor why it began a rapid expansion about 13.8 billion years ago.

I wouldn't say that it "the Bible tells us that" it happened only 6,000 years ago. The number is derived from adding up the Genesis generations of names. But they applied it to the wrong thing. The number is only to be applied to how long God has been dealing with mankind. The date of creation is said to be farther back in time.

Some years ago I'd heard from a creation based scientist who made his presentation for 10,000 years ago. That's all that I remember at this point without going back to refresh my memory on that teaching. I've even forgotten who said it.

However, nothing I've been taught, hear or read suggests that the Christian Genesis story is even remotely like a successful account of the formation of reality.

I've had different exposure of teachings that said that God is perfect and therefore created perfectly. Also saying that the imperfections occurred when Adam sinned. It effected everything that God had given him to have authority over.

I've heard plenty of evidence, its just that it has failed completely to overcome basic standards of evidentiary warrant and my own personal levels of skepticism. Whereas the Big Bang hypothesis has much better evidentiary support.

With me, if I didn't understand something I didn't struggle with it to the point of unbelief, but rather trusted in an eventuality of finding out at a later time. That way I kept my relationship open with God instead of closing the door against Him. I enjoyed our fellowship too much to just walk away just because I didn't have all the ducks in a row concerning everything I had questions about.

Sure. Belief is a binary (and I consider it involuntary).

From what I understand of the scriptures, belief is a matter of choice. Therefore very much voluntary. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. And using faith to shut down the opposing thoughts that are much like satan's temptations to Adam and Eve. Like Abraham, I chose to believe the Bible instead of siding with doubts or unbelief.

But its not 'God/No God', that's a false dichotomy. The null position is to hold off belief of either position until sufficient evidence is presented.

Well, as I pointed out, I did the opposite. So if it could be used in the reverse I'd say that what you did was a false dichotomy.

I believe that no-one has yet presented me with enough evidence to believe the claim "some god exists".

You might not be surprised to read this response. It's the Holy Spirit that leads and guides into all the truth which is God's word. Man only knows so much so it's wrong to rely on anyone who thinks they know. I realize that you could be thinking.. "you included FwGod."

I acknowleged that its possible some god does exist, but all of the specific god claims I've been presented with have failed to past muster to convince me to believe them.

I suppose since they are of higher ability in their Biblical knowledge that it would presumptuous of me to think that I could say anything helpful. And after all, you apparently are satisfied with where you are so I think that it's best for me not to reply any further. But, if I was stupid enough to try anyway.. I might say without intending to insult you.. that you could've listened with your heart and not your head.

Thank you for sharing what you did about yourself.

 

[fwGod]

Nonsense.

I don’t believe that something came from nothing.

I was referring to what I've come across of some Atheists. I didn't mean that all have that same position. Just like Christians have different positions of faith and interpretation of scriptures. Many people have their own way of looking at what they're looking at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Either way, it Atheism can't explain the origin of life then it's not viable.

Sorry, but that does not make any sense at all. Plus you continue to conflate a scientific explanation with atheism. A secular explanation is not necessarily an atheist one? For example do you consider gravity to be "atheistic"? Gravity is just as atheistic as abiogenesis. Many steps of abiogenesis are understood, but not all of them. It is a work in progress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if we find out what started the expansion, what caused whatever started the expansion? And what caused that? Furthermore, Secular scientists blast the big bang - creation.com

Dishonest source is dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was referring to what I've come across of some Atheists. I didn't mean that all have that same position. Just like Christians have different positions of faith and interpretation of scriptures. Many people have their own way of looking at what they're looking at.

Perhaps you did not understand "some atheists". And be careful when you accuse others of having faith. Take your something from nothing claim. Depending on how one defines "nothing" our universe could have come from nothing without breaking any physical laws. If you watch the video "A universe from nothing" Krauss explains this rather well.

And do not put excessive hope in the law of cause and effect. That does not exist at the quantum level. Quantum events tend to be statistical and not causal.