If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up

Except that they don't have us on our heels! LOL

Yuri says that things must be created and assumes this creator is supernatural, but yet we have no evidence of anything supernatural.

I say things must be created and assume this creator is nature because we have tons of evidence to show that nature exists.

one of is logical while the other is illogical and will believe anything without evidence and will call it faith! LOL

Why? why should we have to castle when its the creationist who have no evidence of their claims.

You see this is why it is so entertaining. Entertainment that money doesn't have to buy!

All you have to do is tell a creationist is wrong and watch how many stupid excuses they will come up with to justified their illogical beliefs.

The entertainment value is in watching them not be able to provide proof of their claims and watching them make up all sorts of reasons to keep from believing.  FEAR guides them! LMAO!

 please stop dumping rubbish on this topic!

The overall message I seem to get from this thread is that people like to hear themselves talk.

Darwin's theory tries to explain the origin of species, it doesn't answer to metaphysical questions. We can be even more current with Big Bang theory, but there is same problem like with religion: both points of view will not tell you what was before God or before Big Bang for different reasons.

So to understand the holy of holies and his ways better is a waste of time?  To live by his laws to the best of our ability?  Who was it who lead the Jews out of Israel?  Who gave Moses the commandments?  Why did ancient Israel have an incredibly just society even by today's standards?  One could move up economically in ancient Israel as they believed in free market principles.  Yes, it had a monarchy and David did some questionable things, though Ahab has to be the worst king in the history of the world because he allowed idolatry to flourish and ignored the plight of the poor and was such a bad king he gave Elijah a huge push into becoming one of history's greatest prophets. 

Evolution is true, but why only look at the tools and ignore the architect?  

There are no contradictions in Judaism, although some people's interpretations are differently.  Torah explicitly mentions wool and linen by name, so cotton and polyester may very well be kosher, though many would disagree.  But all the Jews who escaped from Egyptian captivity heard God give Moses the commandments, leaving no room for error.  

There is a way to know God better, through serious and deliberate study of the Torah and Talmuds and on a deeper level Kabballah.  To get anything from Kabballah you must be a practicing Jew who at the very least tries following the 613 mitzvot to the best of their ability. 

You argue with professor's self-confidence. If you are, you should know that to enter post-graduate courses everybody must pass philosophy exam, and philosophy  considered one of the fundamental disciplines. I agree that metaphysical questions for some people may look worthless, but it is actually the topic of discussion, not biology.

alex-rodriguez wrote:

Your "Darwin on Trial" was written by Phillip Johnson. He is a retired law professor. He is not a scientist and he is not qualified to write about science.

If you get all your information about science from professional liars who know nothing about science, you will never learn anything.

You are a science denier. That's fine with me. It's your problem, not mine. 

 Darwin is on tral for being dishonest and calling evolution a science; you know why?, he knew the fossil record did not give any evidence to evolution : this what Darwin said,  he conceded that " the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis. Darwin acknowledge that his theory is faults and there is no prove for natural selection, random, or natural proccesses or whatever lie.  You evolutionist still call it science? I call you guys gullible and simpletons.  

The case for evolution is a losing one, don't call it a science, it is bad philosophy, worthless religion and give no answers to what is important in life; you need to be really gullible to believe it as a science. ouch!

Rosheen-Dove wrote:

how much truth have scientists discovered ?

they are extremely limited in what they can even detect with physical instruments.

they can analyse the physical world, but everything in the world and the cosmos has its beginnings in the non- physical and science has mapped out some forms of energy, but it only ever sees a blink of what is really there. still, it suits the scientific community, it's a pity though that they have to be so narrow minded, quick to always dismiss the big picture. discovering the truth seems to be a low priority in comparison to looking smarter than other people with worn out theories they worship.  

Brilliant!! With a touch of humor!

The_Ghostess_Lola wrote: 

I'm staying on the side of Yuri and Lovey Dovey. They're good pointmakers and they have the materialists on their heels in defense.

Safety first atheists....time to castle....quickly !  

Lovely Lola, thank you and like always you are witty and have a sweet and wonderful weekend. :)

If the " Big Bang " is true, and if the existence of God is true.......

Either God has one mother of a laboratory, or the " Big Bang " was a " natural " event and God waited for everything to cool down a bit and then did his thing with his creative juices.

If " God " exists, he/she/it is the last word in science nerd...

...I mean, to " create" the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces ? Gravity ? Electro-Magnetic Force ? Dark Energy ? Sentience ?  Biology ?

Like I say ..." God " sure knows " Science "

drpsholder wrote: But again, again, again..............just because you say there was a creator doesn't mean it was supernatural. There is no evidence for anything supernatural.  I wonder why you can't find any evidence for supernatural?

Now we do have evidence for natural processes. So it can only be logical to believe the evidence instead of believing what you don't have evidence for.   

Is this your mantra, there is no supernatural power and there is evidences for natural processes, saying over and over doesn't make it true.  

First it is easier and logical that God created the universe and earth and everything. God or a creator of course has supernatural powers, how can He created without it. Duh!  

Second: His creation is a marvel, let take a bird, its wings is so complicated, every bones and feathers its meant for flight, a wing of a insect is also very complicated, the ladybug's wings a great marvel or a bee's wings, its body is too big for his wings but it is able to fly, the humman hand is a marvel, no animal possess it or the human eye is so complex and you have to everything working right to have sight; there many more in this world to marvel God's creation, it point to a supernatural being that creates wonderful things. A single cell should be a enough to prove God existence and his supernatural power.  God is God and He has supernatural power other wise He is not God. So simple!

 Evolution on trial !!!  You position on natural processes without a creator or creator without supernatural is ridiculous.  

First: You are saying that things can come into existences without supernatural forces. Now, think about this. This is so illogocal and irrational that something can come into existences with a creator or supernatural forces. It is proven scientific that you cannot created life spontaneous without a creator, something must aid that first life form.  

Second: Darwin lied, he knew there was no evidence in the fossil records for evolution theories. Still the evolutionists teach it as sceince and its foundation is a lie. I call this faulty sciences.   

Third: Can complex things like a single cell, the brain, the human hand, the human eye, bird wings and insect wings and DNA code really come natural selection, random, by accident, natural processes, it is so illogical and irrational that these things can be created by natural processes. How can a species survive when it is evolving, wouldn't it be helpless because first it is not fully evolve and second when it is in the processes in evolving it is a mutation and not fully functioning and cannot survive. You see the problem with evolution, if it took years to evolve to a different species, how did it survive to become a different species?

there is no concrete evidence of evolution from DNA sequencing. The human race has NEVER created a simple amino acid in a laboritory enviroment AND SUSTAINED IT! Thats just the tip of the iceberg, my understanding is that there are eight (8) essential amino protiens to create life as we know it. If we can't do it in a controlled laboritory enviroment with EXTREME intervention & manipulation by persons who are ALREADY predisposed to aquiring the answer that they want to begin with, why would you believe that it happened "naturraly"  in a viotale & uncontrolled enviroment. This means that those unguided natural processes you are refering to had to do it WITHOUT help not once, but eight INDIVIDUALISTIC times & ARRANGE themselves? There's another way Genesis chapter 1.

alex-rodriguez wrote:

"he knew the fossil record did not give any evidence to evolution"

yureesystem apparently thinks scientific progress came to a complete stop in 1859. And he apparently knows nothing about the evidence for evolution from DNA sequencing which is thousands of times more powerful than the entire fossil record. Fossils are useful but biologists don't need any fossils to be 100% certain evolution is fact.

Science deniers always know zero about the science they don't like. And they go out of their way to make sure they never do know anything. Their problem is incurable. If people have zero curiosity about the world there is nothing that can be done for them. They will waste the rest of their lives being completely wrong about everything.

Education is a wonderful thing but for millions of Americans education hurts their brains.  

Are you disingenuous or worst completely deceived. In his book Evolution:A Theory in Crisis by Micheal Denton, he summarized the bleak situation of evolution: 

  The universal experience of pleontoology... is that while the rocks have continuall yield new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life... what they have never yielded is any of darwin's myriads of transitional form. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every conner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, infinitude of connecting links still not been discoverd and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.  

After 156 years there no evidences in fossil record for evolution, the missing link is still the misssing link,and no transitional forms in the fossil record.     

 You must be the type of person who will hold to a faults view without checking the facts, a belief is not science and doesn't make it true. 

National Geographic society aligned with zeolous scientists who glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird,  evolutiontists  will do anything to prove their case, lying and deceits; it is not first time and won't be the last, the evolutiontists learn from Darwin well.

chessterd5  wrote:

there is no concrete evidence of evolution from DNA sequencing. The human race has NEVER created a simple amino acid in a laboritory enviroment AND SUSTAINED IT! Thats just the tip of the iceberg, my understanding is that there are eight (8) essential amino protiens to create life as we know it. If we can't do it in a controlled laboritory enviroment with EXTREME intervention & manipulation by persons who are ALREADY predisposed to aquiring the answer that they want to begin with, why would you believe that it happened "naturraly"  in a viotale & uncontrolled enviroment. This means that those unguided natural processes you are refering to had to do it WITHOUT help not once, but eight INDIVIDUALISTIC times & ARRANGE themselves? There's another way Genesis chapter 1.  

Totally correct and you are too logical for these simpletons. The problem with alex, he already made up in his mind that evolution is correct, contrary to actual facts, data or science, he will continue to believe a lie. Evolution has one big hurdle, the fossil record proves evolution faults.

If you stopped reading right there then you missed the very truth that researchers don't want you to know- they can't do it, they can't create life even though they can "tell you" how it was done.
The majority of information that I used to paraphrase my statement on amino protiens came from a grant reveiw paper submitted on behalf of the Cambridge university science & research department.

As far as wikipedia is concerned its founder is a confirmed atheist & various information is left out or misconstrued when it comes to religious ideas. As far as the definition it gives in this particular case: I'll try and put it in simple words to avoid confusion " things that are alike tend to be alike. ( And every kind after its own kind... Hmmmm) Just because certain animals that are alike to begin with share some form of genetic information and is not used on the surface must prove that it used to have it therefore it must of mutated multiple times over a long period of time without provideing tangible fossilized lifeforms that confirm it."

petrosianpupil wrote:  

There is no concrete evidence for most scientifc evidence. observations provide evidence but never anything concrete. Thats why science puts forward theories. The bible put forward facts, these facts are wrong.  

If there is no concrete evidence for most scientific evidence, (1) Can  you prove your position?, (2) if observation provided evidence, is it possible with evolution?, you can't expect to be there in the processes and observe. Just think for a moment, a species evolving to different species wouldn't be helpless and couldn't survive because it is mutating to another form and process will take years to be completed. It seem very impractical and especially in a hostile environment.