Chance and evolution

[lucaspa]

I realize that you said "seperate" and that is why I said "outside". He is seperate only in that He is infinite,

I am "outside" my lunch, but that doesn't mean I am separate from it. The lunch is now part of me as the contents of my stomach. When you said "in" God, that's the situation you set up.

1. You haven't established that God is infinite. You have simply asserted it.
2. Being infinite but having the universe "in" God does not separate God from the universe. It simply means that God is very large in comparison to the universe, but you still have the universe as part of God.

And I am still wondering about the universe being "a part of God".

Right. If the universe is part of God, you have just reduced God to the role of a creature of the universe.

The perfect is supposed to be One in nature.

Where did this unsupported assertion come from?

My statement should have been- God is greater than what exists, so He is not what exists.

This doesn't help. As Jesus, God certainly is "what exists". Unless you are now trying to deny Jesus existence? But you have to in order for your assertion to work.

See how you end up destroying Christianity?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Now scientifically, mathmatically the chance that those 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations each fitting in its own niche with a predetermined zip code the odds of those could evolve in thier placement is [/size]1 chance in 10 to the exponent 4,478,296. That number is beyond any comprehension. Anything said to be over 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power is said to be literall impossible. Even math professors universally say: we can calculate how big that number is but it is completely impossible to even imagine how big that number is. it is so large, thats 10 to that number. 1 chance in that number is so small it is beyond the potenital of happening naturally even if given an eternity of time.

Thats quite a post gnarly. You should try to narrow the scope a little to help people address individual points (although I do the same thing all the time with my lenghy dissertations).

The problem with the 'probability' argument is that it takes a present condition and works *backward* assuming a complete chain of events. Each event in the chain, when considered alone, is probable...and so the argument carries no weight. I posted this before, but let me make the point again. Lets say you have a lottery where the chance in winning is 1 in a billion. But a billion unique tickets are sold and each draw someone wins. Lets look at the list of winners:

draw 1: Jet Black
draw 2: lucaspa
draw 3: michali
draw 4: gnarly
draw 5: me
draw 6: david

Now the chances of these people winning in *this order* are less than 1 chance in 10 to the power of 50. According to your source, this means that this sequence of events is "literally impossible". Obviously, this is not the case. You can continue this for another 10,000,000 draws. And then someone looks at the list and says, the odds of these people winning in this order is zero...therefore it did not happen. Its a completely flawed argument. Does this make sense?

All creationist 'science' arguments have the same flaw: they don't bring any good science to the table. At most, they pose good questions...and at their worst, they are complete nonsense.

In order to displace evolution we need *better science*. No scientist should every insert God when the current science fails to adequately explain the phenomena.

As I have said before, evolution does *not* disprove or change the truth that the God of the Bible is real and created all things.

 

[Michali]

Sure it is. You have not demonstrated the necessity that the sytem you are looking for must be infinite. That is your premise, but you haven't established that premise. You have to go back and do that.


Again, no. The universe is expanding. Period. It is getting larger. It is not required to expand into anything. All that is required is that the universe get bigger. You are applying your limited viewpoint of a balloon expanding into the surrounding air. But the universe is not like that.

You must understand that I know it is not like that. But because it is increasing in value, it is increasing within the parameters of infinity. Which is something that I believe to be a system. Which I believe that system to be the "perfect".

Say what? You just attempted to redefine "omnipotent". But omnipotent is defined as the ability to do anything and everything. That is what "omni" means. Pi is not omnipotent because, although it is infinite it 1) doesn't explore every combination of numbers. After all, it does not explore the combination of 0.1666666 ... does it? It can't! Because that seqeunce also goes to infinity. 2) pi cannot make a hamburger, go for a walk, create a universe, etc. So pi is infiniite but not omnipotent.


Indivisible unit of what? That's the second time you have used multiple universes incorrectly. What exactly do you think is the theory of multiple universes? I can think of at least 3 different one.

I am sorry about the pi thing. Pi is a mathematical term, and cannot be applied to real life if there is an actuall indivisable unit of spacetime. Because infinity is so complex, some have theorized a "true Greek atom". Obviously, there must not be an infinite amount of space between my fingers, because they can make contact with eachother.

I gave several examples of entities that are NOT possible. You didn't address any one of them. Therefore you cannot simply assert a falsified claim as tho it is still true.

What examples? Do you mean the mathematics forcing existence? What do you mean? Anything you have said to not be true I have said you were mistaken.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Not to be mean, but have you read all of the previous posts? The root of 2 is infact perfectly infinite "in the small". But, in the real world, in order for the universe to not be infinite, there has to be indivisble units of spacetime.

Its just that your notion of perfect is a strange one, Michali. Root 2 is 'perfectly' infinite? Why isn't 5? It also has an infinite number of digits after the decimal place, they just all happen to be zero.

Why does perfection=infinity mathematically?

 

[lucaspa]

Because the perfect is perfect,

That's a classic tautology! It is meaningless. All cats are cats. Yes, but so what?

by my logic, God is potent enough to limit His own actions. He has "chosen" His will. He has "chosen" His nature. Because we also are beings, I can see that God has imprinted His image onto us.

The initial statement was that God had was limited to putting His characteristics on us. This doesn't help that. If God chooses to limit itself and its characteristics (then it could also limit its infinity and omnipotence, BTW) then that means a whole set of characteristics that God can eliminate from itself. However, what is to prevent God from putting some of those characteristics into humans? Say, gender? Which gender does God have?

In fact, God is not compelled to put any of its characteristics into us. So what if we are also beings? Bacteria are also beings. Did God imprint its image onto them? How do you "see" that this has happened? What's your extrabiblical evidence?

I am attempting to seperating myself from my beliefs at the moment, so therefore I am not staying within the confines of Christian theology.

Why not? Isn't Christian theology supposed to contain truths about God? Why are you junking all those truths?

And the wait? How about the fact that there wasn't a wait?

By your logic there has to have been a wait.
1. God is infinite in all dimensions.
2. Therefore, God has existed infinitely into the past.
3. Big Bang is only 13 billion years old.
4. God had to exist infinitely before the Big Bang.
5. Humans are God's companionship.
6. Therefore, since God existed infinitely before the Big Bang, then God had to wait.

Also, there was no time before the creation of the universe.

No time to us. But you are insisting that God is beyond the universe. That God is the system that contains the universe. Since the universe has time, that means that God has time long before the universe came into being.

Logical deductions from your assertions.

 

[Michali]

I am "outside" my lunch, but that doesn't mean I am separate from it. The lunch is now part of me as the contents of my stomach. When you said "in" God, that's the situation you set up.

1. You haven't established that God is infinite. You have simply asserted it.
2. Being infinite but having the universe "in" God does not separate God from the universe. It simply means that God is very large in comparison to the universe, but you still have the universe as part of God.


Right. If the universe is part of God, you have just reduced God to the role of a creature of the universe.

Like I said, the definitions don't seem to work for God to fill erything and yet be seperate from everything. So, He is both in it, and out of it. Though this does not make the veiw pantheistic. The universe is not God, but it is in God. And I am calling the infinite system "God". Do I need to establish that there is an infinity again with the expanding universe? How have I reduced God to something He has created by saying the system is a part of Him?

Where did this unsupported assertion come from?

That is actually from Xenophanes, but, if it incorrect, then it is incorrect.

This doesn't help. As Jesus, God certainly is "what exists". Unless you are now trying to deny Jesus existence? But you have to in order for your assertion to work.

See how you end up destroying Christianity?

I told you that I am seperating myself from Christianity at the moment. I believe that God did not stuff Himself into a human body. How could He be out keeping order through His creation-filling presence. He simply was present in Jesus' body as he is in all of ours. Which was a body He had complete control over.

 

[lucaspa]

You must understand that I know it is not like that. But because it is increasing in value, it is increasing within the parameters of infinity. Which is something that I believe to be a system. Which I believe that system to be the "perfect".

Well, we are making progress. You are at least thinking about what your premises are.

What you should have done is set up a system like this:

I am going to propose some ideas. I want to see if my ideas follow logically from the premises. The premises are:
1. Infinity is a system.
2. Infinity is perfect.

Now, we could then have evaluated your logic. But we would then have gone back and also challenged your premises. Logical conclusions are only as valid as the premises, and your premises are shaky, to say the least. I think they are unsupportable.

if there is an actuall indivisable unit of spacetime.

There is. It's called the Planck length and the Planck time. Anything below that becomes fuzzy and blurred adn indivisible.

I gave several examples of entities that are NOT possible. You didn't address any one of them. Therefore you cannot simply assert a falsified claim as tho it is still true.

What examples? Do you mean the mathematics forcing existence? What do you mean? Anything you have said to not be true I have said you were mistaken.

Your claim: in an infinite universe everthing is possible. Even if the universe were infinite, we would still never have:
1. A flat earth.
2. Getting more work out of a reversible system than was put in. Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
3. the aether.
4. Matter moving at speeds faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

None of these can exist.

 

[Michali]

Let me say that the view works well with Christianity by the names of God. Such as "I AM"- Being that He is the only true substance.
"Alpha and Omega"- The parameters of infinity which we will never reach. And which all exists in.

 

[Michali]

Well, we are making progress. You are at least thinking about what your premises are.

What you should have done is set up a system like this:

I am going to propose some ideas. I want to see if my ideas follow logically from the premises. The premises are:
1. Infinity is a system.
2. Infinity is perfect.

Now, we could then have evaluated your logic. But we would then have gone back and also challenged your premises. Logical conclusions are only as valid as the premises, and your premises are shaky, to say the least. I think they are unsupportable.

That would have been nice, but I began in the middle of a thread and in response to a post. But unsupportable? As with anything of infinite nature, we have to make proposals. Note- If you think I am saying "there must be" because I believe this to be hard fact, I do not. It was simply used in common speech to carry on the post.

Also, I am only shooting out the proposals. In which case, I know there are going to be problems. But that doesn't mean that the entire idea is trash.

There is. It's called the Planck length and the Planck time. Anything below that becomes fuzzy and blurred adn indivisible.





Your claim: in an infinite universe everthing is possible. Even if the universe were infinite, we would still never have:
1. A flat earth.
2. Getting more work out of a reversible system than was put in. Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
3. the aether.
4. Matter moving at speeds faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

None of these can exist.

No, if the universe were omnipotent and uncontrolled it would do everything. It is because of those laws that the infinity is perfect enough to limit its own actions. It has set up laws. The universe is not infinite, so it is not necessary to discuss it. But whatever is infinite limits itself, and has "will" in doing so.

 

[gnarly love]

This isn't a quote. Well yeah it is, I think you consider reading his books. Darwin in articles claimed to be insane. He would puke up on himself, the father of our modern concept of evolution is insane as he even said in his writings. I will end here:
"It's pure determinism."
You have throw out all ideas of a god, therefore i will not debate such a biased closed hearted individual. Cast your biasedness away as once said by a scienctist athiest, Dr. Atkins. You cant explain orgins so what are we to discuss something that may have not occured?

 

[Mike Flynn]

This isn't a quote. Well yeah it is, I think you consider reading his books. Darwin in articles claimed to be insane. He would puke up on himself, the father of our modern concept of evolution is insane as he even said in his writings. I will end here:
"It's pure determinism."
You have throw out all ideas of a god, therefore i will not debate such a biased closed hearted individual. Cast your biasedness away as once said by a scienctist athiest, Dr. Atkins. You cant explain orgins so what are we to discuss something that may have not occured?

I'm not sure what any of this means gnarly.

 

[Jet Black]

Not to be mean, but have you read all of the previous posts? The root of 2 is infact perfectly infinite "in the small". But, in the real world, in order for the universe to not be infinite, there has to be indivisble units of spacetime.

but that is really stretching it... you are sticking in the superfluous word "perfect" when sazing "root 2 is irrational" can do exactly the same job, without resorting to such nebulous terms as perfectly infinite in the small. ok, which is more perfect, root2, pi, or e? I will start by saying they are all irrational.

 

[Michali]

but that is really stretching it... you are sticking in the superfluous word "perfect" when sazing "root 2 is irrational" can do exactly the same job, without resorting to such nebulous terms as perfectly infinite in the small. ok, which is more perfect, root2, pi, or e? I will start by saying they are all irrational.

My mistake, these are all not infinite. They may be infinitely divisible mathematically, but in the real world, 3 does infact reach 4. The answer to this is, these numbers are not infinitely large.

 

[Michali]

Its just that your notion of perfect is a strange one, Michali. Root 2 is 'perfectly' infinite? Why isn't 5? It also has an infinite number of digits after the decimal place, they just all happen to be zero.

Why does perfection=infinity mathematically?

These numbers are not infinitely large. It is the large infinity I was supposed to have been concentrating on. But, mathematically, I look at the perfect like this: It is a set value (a line) of which the compared values (the assymptote) will never reach. In infinity, there is always a number greater than another number. The "infinite value", or the unreachable line, is infact, perfect in this way. "Perfect" is the word I am attributing to this ever-great value.

 

[Michali]

That's a classic tautology! It is meaningless. All cats are cats. Yes, but so what?

I said because the perfect (noun) is perfect (adjective).

The initial statement was that God had was limited to putting His characteristics on us. This doesn't help that. If God chooses to limit itself and its characteristics (then it could also limit its infinity and omnipotence, BTW) then that means a whole set of characteristics that God can eliminate from itself.

I believe that the perfect, in order to actually be perfect, can be greater than its own self. It can impose imposibilities for it to follow by. It defines itself from being chaos. It gives the infinite choice and will. It can, simply put, do anything. This includes being the "last system" and being apart from that system. Though I see no reason why it should have to be.

However, what is to prevent God from putting some of those characteristics into humans? Say, gender? Which gender does God have? In fact, God is not compelled to put any of its characteristics into us. So what if we are also beings? Bacteria are also beings. Did God imprint its image onto them? How do you "see" that this has happened? What's your extrabiblical evidence?

The perfect (if what I say is true) must be a self limiting infinity. It has free will through this, and it chooses to impart free will on its creations. Humanity (I believe) is the only true being seperate from causuality by the nature of the spirit (I know this is my belief). We know that God is perfect, and yet has the ability to forget our sins. This is an example of self-imposed limits.

Why not? Isn't Christian theology supposed to contain truths about God? Why are you junking all those truths?

I am not adhereing to Christian theology at the moment, and yet it appears that this perfect of which I speak of, has the attributes of our Christian God.

By your logic there has to have been a wait.
1. God is infinite in all dimensions.
2. Therefore, God has existed infinitely into the past.
3. Big Bang is only 13 billion years old.
4. God had to exist infinitely before the Big Bang.
5. Humans are God's companionship.
6. Therefore, since God existed infinitely before the Big Bang, then God had to wait.

1.)As soon as God made the dimensions in Him, He automatically filled their limited proportions.
2.)God existed infinitely in the past up until the beginning, because there was no time before that.
3.)yes
4.)Yes He exists, but He did not exist before the Big Bang. He just exists, but not "until" the Big Bang (or the limit of time) was imposed on the universe, did He have a "beginning" in time. It was not until that point, that His existence could be measured in moments.
5.)Or something like that. As I said earlier, I don't know our true purpose.
6.)God (as Arikay once theorized) would be outside of time, and could see everything in an instant. He would exist in every instant. He never waited (implying He follows by time's rules). He does not follow frame by frame, but rather exists in all of them.

No time to us. But you are insisting that God is beyond the universe. That God is the system that contains the universe. Since the universe has time, that means that God has time long before the universe came into being.

Logical deductions from your assertions.

Time is a created limit to impose order on His system of the universe. It was not "until" spacetime was created that there was anything such as "long" and "before". He is infinite in all these as "soon" as they "come" into being. Because they exist in Him and expand in Him seemingly forever, He is an infinite system.

 

[Michali]

I think I would just like to go ahead and state all of my proposal's plainly:
(like lucaspa said)
1.)The infinity is a system in which the universe expands in.

2.)Infinity is omni-potent.

3.)Infinity is "perfect". Perfect, meaning it is greater than anything that is compared to it.

4.)Infinity, being perfect, can effectively top itself. Therefore imposing limitations on its own actions, rather than spontaneously performing actions of chaotic proportions. This is the attribute of a being. Infinity is a being.

5.)Infinity is God.

I'll post this here, as well as begin another thread.

 

[lucaspa]

This isn't a quote. Well yeah it is, I think you consider reading his books. Darwin in articles claimed to be insane. He would puke up on himself, the father of our modern concept of evolution is insane as he even said in his writings.

Where is this claim of insanity? In context. Which means we need the entire paragraph. And Darwin's writings are on the web here to help you out:
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

This character attack is not going to get you anywhere. I showed how Darwin thought evolution was a creation idea and not atheistic. Now you are dodging that.

I will end here:

"It's pure determinism."
You have throw out all ideas of a god, therefore i will not debate such a biased closed hearted individual. Cast your biasedness away as once said by a scienctist athiest, Dr. Atkins. You cant explain orgins so what are we to discuss something that may have not occured?

Atkins is indeed an atheist. But where have I thrown out any idea of deity? C'mon, Gnarly, show me.

Evolution did occur and is occuring as we speak.

Now, when atheists say "what is the origin of God" I explain you can't use an unanswered question on the next level to invalidate an answer on the first level. You're not going to get that. Let me try again.

We answer questions in layers. As soon as we answer 1 question, 3 or 4 new ones pop up out of the answer.

For instance:
"Why is there a universe?"

Possible answer: "God created it."

New questions: 1. Where did God come from? 2. How did God create the universe? Now, not having the answers to 1 and 2 doesn't mean the answer "God created it" is wrong, does it?

So, let's try a new sequence:
1. "How did the diversity of living organisms come about?" Answer: They evolved thru descent with modification.
2. Where did they descend from? Answer: A primitive cell.
3. How did the cell come about? Answer: Chemistry.
4. Where did the chemicals come from? Answer: nucleosynthesis in stars.
5. Where did stars come from? Answer: From gravity collapsing hydrogen.
5. Where did hydrogen come from? Answer: From frozen energy in the Big Bang.
6. What caused the Big Bang? Answer: We don't know.

Now, because we don't know what caused the Big Bang does not mean we don't have the origin of stars, chemicals, life, and the diversity of life.

Your logic is just as invalid as that of the militant atheists who try to deny that God created the universe by saying we don't know the origin of God.

Clear? Sauce for the goose.

 

[gnarly love]

Dr. Carl Baugh said, or I heard it wrong, Darwin did pleasd insane. BUt if he didnt o well...

"Evolution did occur and is occuring as we speak"

Well, you are unless I have in the last month or so not heard that it is, the scientific community agrees that we are not evolving. This has even been said by a scientist, but forget his name and his exact quote. Heavy stuff against your idea of evolution occuring now. What is your example of it? A horse and a donkey, then to a mule and thats it? =)

"Where did God come from?"

Sir, now come on, sincerely. No wonder you deny the existence of GOD, you dont even know what GOD is. Here is a website that goes in more detail: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

But to make it shorter, you dont know the concept of GOD. GOD has always existed, there is no begginning to GOD. Even if there was and I am not saying at all that this is the case but to convey my point. If GOD was created, wouldnt that make GOD not GOD? The cause is greater than the effect as you should have learned in grade sshool. GOD, isnt that being suppose to have the most supreme power? Yes. Therefore if GOD was created, that cause that made "GOD" come into being would actually be god instead of "GOD." I understand why you dont believe in GOD now, you literally know nothing or bearly anything about GOD. If you cant even get His existence striaght, you have no foundation to add to and make falsehood assupmtions.

"How did God create the universe?"

God is all-powerfull, if you are refering to my GOD. Which I do believe you are and thus wouldnt that be silly to have all power and then be hindered and puzzeled on how to make a universe? This earth in many places is beyond beauty, but as astronauts were out of earths atmosphere once, they undesrcibable sight was described by saying "In the begginning GOD." Sums it up well. If you only know one half of the argument and are very biased towards the other while even having little to no knowledge, certianly you will make up wild imaginations of the other side or just not care on finding out what really is the agrument on the opposite side. You need to also know your opponent as well as yourself. And yes I agree, even if there was no answer to something, that doesnt make it wrong, that is pure fallacy.

"1. "How did the diversity of living organisms come about?" Answer: They evolved thru descent with modification." Yes, could have, but not a fact.

"2. Where did they descend from? Answer: A primitive cell." You really need to reexamine your critearia. Even a single cell organism is very complex. No organism is truly "simple." Name a primitive cell, once you do, I can as of right now garuntee you it was not truly without complexity. If this is true as I claim, evolution cant be really true....

3. How did the cell come about? Answer: Chemistry. Once again, cause has to be greater than effect. Chemistry brought the cell into being. The cell brought us into being, therefore even thought are brains are the most complex and awesome thing in the universe, chemistr is higher because it ultimately brought us into being, laugh laugh.

4. Where did the chemicals come from? Answer: nucleosynthesis in stars. Dont know about it, probably so though.

5. Where did stars come from? Answer: From gravity collapsing hydrogen. Serious? Yes. But lets look at what Brandon Carter has calculated; The odds against the conditions be suitable for later star formation without which planents would not exist is 1 followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros!

6. What caused the Big Bang? Answer: We don't know. Exactly, not that it is wrong, but it is though not a scientific observation, but rather a epistomological question in philosophy. Most likely against what we observe: No known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch.' As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end. The Big Bang either had to be created by something, which only implies a creator, or it didnt happen. The Big Crunch sure doesnt seem like it would be permitted ontinuance of this cycle of collapsing and recollapsing until we were brought into being if it did ever occur.

"Your logic is just as invalid as that of the militant atheists who try to deny that God created the universe by saying we don't know the origin of God."

There is no "origin" to GOD, He has always existed and always will. That shows GOD didnt come from somewhere.

Love and Truth.

 

[Arikay]

Another good example why you should never trust anything that Dr. Carl Baugh says, as he doesn't have a good track record anyway.

Im curious, have you ever taken antibiotics and thought that they would kill the germs you had?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Dr. Carl Baugh said, or I heard it wrong, Darwin did pleasd insane. BUt if he didnt o well...

Considering Baugh's record, you should probably find a more reliable source.

"Evolution did occur and is occuring as we speak"

Well, you are unless I have in the last month or so not heard that it is, the scientific community agrees that we are not evolving.

You must understand the difference between "scientific community" and "professional creationists."

This has even been said by a scientist, but forget his name and his exact quote.

Then your comment is worthless. Provide a source for your wild allegations.

Heavy stuff against your idea of evolution occuring now. What is your example of it? A horse and a donkey, then to a mule and thats it? =)

More worthless rhetoric. About as "heavy" as a raincloud.

"Where did God come from?"

Sir, now come on, sincerely. No wonder you deny the existence of GOD, you dont even know what GOD is. Here is a website that goes in more detail: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
lucaspa denying the existance of God?
Christiananswers.net a reliable source of evolutionary info?

You really did come to this discussion unprepared....

But to make it shorter, you dont know the concept of GOD. GOD has always existed, there is no begginning to GOD. Even if there was and I am not saying at all that this is the case but to convey my point. If GOD was created, wouldnt that make GOD not GOD?

Of course. Which is why Creationists need to define God out of any discussion of origins.

The cause is greater than the effect as you should have learned in grade sshool.

Wrong again.
I drop a pebble at the top of a snowy mountain.
Five minutes later, an avalanche buries a small town at the foot of the same mountain.
Cause greater than the effect?

GOD, isnt that being suppose to have the most supreme power? Yes. Therefore if GOD was created, that cause that made "GOD" come into being would actually be god instead of "GOD."

So you just change the definition of "God" to be whatever you can't explain the origin of...

I understand why you dont believe in GOD now, you literally know nothing or bearly anything about GOD. If you cant even get His existence striaght, you have no foundation to add to and make falsehood assupmtions.

I suggest you look at lucaspa's posts before you embarass yourself any further with such accusations.

"How did God create the universe?"

God is all-powerfull, if you are refering to my GOD. Which I do believe you are and thus wouldnt that be silly to have all power and then be hindered and puzzeled on how to make a universe?

Stop tap-dancing and answer the question.

This earth in many places is beyond beauty, but as astronauts were out of earths atmosphere once, they undesrcibable sight was described by saying "In the begginning GOD." Sums it up well. If you only know one half of the argument and are very biased towards the other while even having little to no knowledge, certianly you will make up wild imaginations of the other side or just not care on finding out what really is the agrument on the opposite side.

Stop tap-dancing and answer the question.

You need to also know your opponent as well as yourself. And yes I agree, even if there was no answer to something, that doesnt make it wrong, that is pure fallacy.

If you're still talking to lucaspa, then you just blew out every Irony Meter on the board.

"1. "How did the diversity of living organisms come about?" Answer: They evolved thru descent with modification." Yes, could have, but not a fact.

So how'd it happen?

"2. Where did they descend from? Answer: A primitive cell." You really need to reexamine your critearia. Even a single cell organism is very complex. No organism is truly "simple." Name a primitive cell, once you do, I can as of right now garuntee you it was not truly without complexity. If this is true as I claim, evolution cant be really true....

Do try to study cellular evolution once in a while...

3. How did the cell come about? Answer: Chemistry. Once again, cause has to be greater than effect. Chemistry brought the cell into being. The cell brought us into being, therefore even thought are brains are the most complex and awesome thing in the universe, chemistr is higher because it ultimately brought us into being, laugh laugh.

Once again, since you've based this on a faulty assumption (cause must be greater than effect), your point falls flat.

4. Where did the chemicals come from? Answer: nucleosynthesis in stars. Dont know about it, probably so though.

So there you go.

5. Where did stars come from? Answer: From gravity collapsing hydrogen. Serious? Yes. But lets look at what Brandon Carter has calculated; The odds against the conditions be suitable for later star formation without which planents would not exist is 1 followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros!

Not so. Carter is looking at the current state of the universe and assuming that this was the intended result.

6. What caused the Big Bang? Answer: We don't know. Exactly, not that it is wrong, but it is though not a scientific observation, but rather a epistomological question in philosophy. Most likely against what we observe: No known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch.' As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end. The Big Bang either had to be created by something, which only implies a creator, or it didnt happen. The Big Crunch sure doesnt seem like it would be permitted ontinuance of this cycle of collapsing and recollapsing until we were brought into being if it did ever occur.

You really only see two possibilities, do you?

"Your logic is just as invalid as that of the militant atheists who try to deny that God created the universe by saying we don't know the origin of God."

There is no "origin" to GOD, He has always existed and always will. That shows GOD didnt come from somewhere.

Love and Truth.

And semantics.