.jpg)
I decided to make a post out of it because this took about 40 minutes. Damn.
I didn't want to spend too much time on this, though, so my responses aren't HUGE.
What you fail to realize is anyone who even suggests the idea of not God, but Intelligent Design, they are publicly ostracized by the scientific community. Journalists have been fired, tenured professors have been fired and lost their tenures, all for only SUGGESTING looking into I.D. (which is different than God)
The scientific world is so biased towards evolution and against anything that opposes it. Check out Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" I have watched the film with atheists and evolution proponents, and they were shocked by what they saw and what is REALLY going on in the scientific community.
I was once asked the question: "In my class we are having a roleplaying type debate game where the class is set in the 1860's and darwin just came out with his evolutionary theory. I'm curious on how you would argue creationism besides saying "because the bible says so""First off, it is quite impossible to argue for creationism without somewhat including 'because the Bible says so,' because Creationism is the belief that God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth, so you would logically need to at least somewhat use that initial source (the Bible) to help show your side of the argument.
The way you have your question worded would be like, "Try and prove what Darwin really says about evolution...without using any of his memoirs or his book 'Origin of Species.'" You obviously wouldn't be able to prove or disprove anything without seeing what his actual viewpoints on the matter were, and his source material. So therefore if you want to argue Creationism, the Bible will indefinitely be used.
However, you CAN argue Intelligent Design without the use of the Bible. Many people make the assumption that anyone or any scientist who argues the theory of I.D. is simply trying to push God into the classrooms. This is not the case. There are thousands of legitimate scientists all over the world who believe the theory of Intelligent Design, not Creationism, holds validity, and that life around us undeniably shows that there was some kind of grand designer, whether he is God or aliens.
In almost any scientific classroom you enter today, if you argue Intelligent Design, you will be ridiculed. You will be told you are ignorant and close-minded. It has gotten to the point where scientists and journalists worldwide have lost their jobs, careers, tenures, and much more for even possibly proposing the theory of I.D.
This is outrageous as scientists are supposed to be free to learn about and explore whatever they feel like. Never before have there been limits to science, where people were told what they are allowed to research and what they are not allowed to research. There was an entire documentary made on this very topic of the modern world forcibly crucifying those that believe in I.D. (not Creationism). It is Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and I'd encourage anyone to watch it. It was one of the best and most eye-opening films I have ever seen.
But back to the basis of your question. Since the beginning of science, science has been maintained by making hypotheses and theories on different aspects of life, and trying to come up with answers and prove the meanings to things. It was done with great risks, and science has very often been wrong before, only to be improved upon and corrected at the addition of later science with more advanced research.
For example, centuries ago science stated that the sun revolved around the earth. In more recent centuries science stated that science was before wrong, and that the earth actually revolves around the sun and that the sun does not revolve at all. But yet again, science has corrected itself when in recent years, science discovered that the sun does indeed revolve; not around the earth, but the sun does revolve around the Milky Way galaxy through space.
Centuries ago, science claimed that the earth was flat. Centuries later science said it was previously wrong, and that the earth is indeed circular.
Centuries ago, scientists of the Greek society believed earth was carried on top of the god Atlas' shoulders. Scientists from the Hindu society believe that the earth rested on the back of an elephant that stood on the back of a gigantic turtle that swam through an endless sea. Yet science changed yet again in 1650 with Sir Isaac Newton when he discovered the concept of gravity, and claimed that the earth actually hangs on nothing.
Centuries ago before the invention of the telescope, science taught that the stars in the sky were able to be numbered. Greek astronomer and mathematician Hipparchus (190-120 B.C.) claimed that there were exactly 1,026 stars. Later science corrected itself with astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy who said that there were actually 1,056 stars. Later on, science corrected itself again with German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 A.D.) who claimed that there were actually only 1,006 stars. Science of those days taught that the stars in the sky could be numbered. But science changed once again in 1608, when Galileo invented the first telescope, and found that there were many, many more stars in the sky than any previous human mind had ever been able to imagine.So what is my point with all of this? My point is that science always has been, and still is flawed. Yes, it corrects itself, but there are still flaws. Some scientists devote their entire lives to 'proving' one theory, only to be proven wrong centuries later by another theory. This is what I believe happened with Darwin.
And for the record, each of those factual scenarios I listed above, the earth being a sphere, the earth hanging on nothing, the stars being unnumbered, and the sun revolving, guess what. The BIBLE taught us all of these facts long before science discovered that they were facts. Let me show you how.
The Bible not only contains zero scientific errors, but also makes accurate scientific statements, which would not be discovered until centuries later. I’ll give you a few examples.
A. The SunUnlike the Muslim Qur’an, which states that the sun sets in a muddy spring (Surah 18:86), the Bible claims that the sun is on a circuit through space. In Psalm 19:6, King David says, “Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end.” But wait, the sun doesn’t revolve, right? Science has proven that the Earth rotates around the sun, and not vice versa, which is what was thought for many centuries, right? Yes, that is correct. In fact, scientist at the time of the Bible believed that the sun was stationary. However, as we have discovered in more recent years, although the sun does not revolve around the earth, the sun does indeed revolve around the Milky Way galaxy through space, just like David claims.
B. The Shape of the EarthIn Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah makes the claim, “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.” The Hebrew word for circle is “chuwg.” “Chuwg” literally translates into “sphere.” We know that Isaiah wrote these words somewhere between 740 and 680 B.C. Scientist during this time claimed that the earth was flat! Aristotle himself, who wrote in his book “On the Heavens,” did not make the claim that the earth was spherical, until at least 300 years after Isaiah wrote what he did. Other verses that reference the spherical shape of the earth are Proverbs 8:27. In fact, more than 2,000 years later, even in 1492, some scientists still believed that Christopher Columbus would sail right off of the flat surface of the earth!
C. The Suspension of the EarthGreeks believed that the mythological god Atlas carried the earth on his shoulders. Hindus believed that the earth rested on the back of an elephant that stood on the back of a gigantic turtle that swam through an endless sea. Sir Isaac Newton eventually discovered the concept of gravity in the 1600’s. Yet, Job of the Old Testament Bible, claims in Job 26:7, “He [God] hangs the earth on nothing.” Science did not discover the earth hangs on nothing until about 2,000 years later in 1650.
D. The StarsBefore the invention of the telescope, man thought that they were able to number the starts in the sky. Greek astronomer and mathematician Hipparchus (190-120 B.C.) claimed that there were exactly 1,026 stars. Astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy said that there were 1,056 stars. German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 A.D.) claimed that there were 1,006 stars. Modern science of those days taught that it was possible to number the stars in the sky. At least, until Galileo invented the first telescope in 1608, and found that there were many, many more stars in the sky than any human up until that point had ever imagined.
Jeremiah wrote in Jeremiah 33:22, centuries before any all of these other figures, “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the seas measured.” With modern technology, scientists estimate that the universe contains possibly 100 billion galaxies, with approximately, 200, billion stars each. According to those figures, that would be enough for every single person alive on the planet to personally own more than 2 trillion stars each, and there still be some to spare. Dr. Mark Eastman states, “Counting at a rate of ten stars per second it would take over 100 trillion years. Surely the host of heaven cannot be numbered!” World famous astronomer, Carl Sagan (1934-1996) also states, “The total number of stars in the universe is greater than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of planet Earth.”How did the authors of the Bible, in a time period when science said that the earth was flat, the start could be numbered, the sun was stationary, and that the earth was not suspended on nothing, predict with 100% accuracy without flaw, centuries before science discovered the truths about all of these things? Was it all just coincidence and lucky guesses? You can think what you want, but I will continue to believe that like the Bible says, its authors were divinely inspired. 2 Peter 1:21 states, “Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
But anyway, that was getting off topic and going into the Bible. Back on track. There was no need to argue Creationism scientifically at the time of Darwin, because the majority of scientists were Christians, and believed without a doubt that it was God who created everything. So if they knew in their hearts this to be true, why would they try and prove it wrong? But then along comes Darwin, and what does he have to do? He has to take a risk. He has to make claims that are considered so outrageous by the rest of society, with the risk of being publicly ostracized and ridiculed. But he did it anyway, and he made his claims. Now his THEORY, is taught in most of our schools as FACT.
So now let me relate back to the beginning of my answer. There are scientists today who were like Darwin in the 1800's. They think Darwin was maybe onto something, but like the scientists who believed the earth was flat, or that the stars could be numbered, that Darwin didn't have it all correct, and there is more to it. But what is happening today to these scientists who dare to question Darwin? They are publicly ridiculed; and many of them have legitimate theories and questions they want to pursue. What would society be like today if scientists in the past had just stood back, and accepted everything as it was? We would still be believing the earth was flat, there were only 1,000 stars, and that the earth was sitting on top of a gigantic turtle.
My whole point with this is Darwin made a legitimate theory for his time period, based on his hypothesis, but he did not have all of the answers and all of the background. If you showed Ptolemy a telescope, he would have never said there were only 1,000 stars. Likewise, I believe if you had shown Darwin a microscope, he would have never believed that everything was created by chance.
Darwin had NO IDEA of the complexities of life, or even the complexities of the human cell. Or what about DNA? DNA is what instructs our cells what to do. Did you know that in every single person, you have enough DNA in your body, that if you were to unwind it all, it would be long enough to reach from the earth to the sun, wrap around the sun, and come back to earth 300 TIMES! The sun is 93 million miles away!
Darwin had no idea of the world of the cell, and what it really entailed. There is a WHOLE ENTIRE world in every cell that science had previously been oblivious to. Let me show you what I mean. The following link is a video clip animation of what really goes on inside each and every cell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-GYLVNh-k
If this doesn't get you to say 'wow' and realize how complex life really is, I don't know what will.
What I am saying with all of this is that yes, Darwin had a legitimate hypothesis for the time with his findings, but just as science has corrected itself again and again over history, it once again needs to correct itself.
Just seeing the complexities of life, of animals such as the humming bird, of the cell, of DNA, it CRIES that there HAS to have been a creator! Whether this creator is God or not, all of this couldn't have simply happened by chance!
The existence of God cannot be undeniably proven in such a way that every single person will believe it; and it cannot be disproven in such a way. Of course it could be, if God would simply show himself in front of the entire world and say 'HEY! I'M REAL!' But that would change the entire premise of our creation. God created mankind so that they would have FAITH in him, and trust in God. If God simply showed himself, there would be no need for faith, as we know it to be fact. That is the reason why this issue will never be fully answered and come to a close.
However, this does not mean that is no evidence at all for the existence of God, or of an Intelligent Designer. The Bible states:
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).What this is saying is that the evidence for God is all around us in creation in general. In the earth, in animals, in humans, in cells, in DNA.
I know, I know, I got off topic again, and I'm using the argument of the Bible, so let me show you a few arguments that don't include the Bible. The first argument I will show you is the ontological argument. This uses the concept of God (or in your case, not God, but an intelligent designer) to prove the existence of God. It begins with a definition of God (or I.D.) as being, 'a being than which no greater can be conceived.'
It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
That argument is a little confusing, so here's another one. This argument is the teleological argument. This argument is simply because the world and universe around us show such complexities, that there of course must have been some kind of grand designer.
"The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.
Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents."
If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10^243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 zeros). Not only that, but a single cell is comprised of MILLIONS of these protein molecules. So your saying that for each cell, out of the infinite number of them out there, there is a 1 in 10^243 chance that that protein molecule has formed by chance, and then take that number and multiply it by millions, and than take that number and multiply it by the sheer infinite number of cells in existence. And yep, it all just happened by random chance. Sounds kind of foolish to believe when you look at it that way, doesn't it?
This argument is saying that the chances of all aspects of life just happening 'by chance' is too great, and screams that there must have been some kind of intelligent designer. It makes sense, right? Every single scientist in existence will look at some object and say 'this just didn't poof from thin air into existence, there was some kind of designer of this object.' Think of the complexities of a computer, or even something as simple as a shoe. These things just didn't appear. They were designed. There was a designer who had a grand plan. So now we as society accept that every single thing is created by a designer, with the exception of the universe? Really? If it is possible for mankind to design a simple shoe, don't you think it would be quite possible for there to be an Intelligent Designer who started it all?
Another argument is the cosmological argument. Every effect is a result of a cause. This universe we live in and everything else in it is viewed as an effect of something. It came from somewhere. So what is the cause that created all of these effects? There has to be some kind of cause. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. I view that “un-caused” cause as God.
Another argument is the moral argument. Ideals such as lying, adultery, and murder are widely viewed worldwide as bad things, and things that people shouldn't do; they are morally wrong. But where did this sense of what we know to be right and wrong come from, if not from a God who designed us that way to know what is sin and what is not? You mean to tell me that all societies over the course of all history just happened by chance to generally believe that all of these things are morally wrong, without having any cause or reason for believing that these things are morally wrong?
I could go on and on about this topic, but I'll start to bring it to a close. No matter what arguments for or against evolution and I.D. are presented, there will ALWAYS be those that say "that's not legitimate evidence, you need more proof, I still don't believe you." That is never going to change. That is the reason why this debate will never fully be settled until the end of days when Christ returns, and all see the real truth.
There will be those that argue with every single thing I say, and they'll throw pile after pile of 'evidence' supporting their claims and theories, and trying to refute mine. But it really is quite pointless honestly. I believe what I believe based on my faith in God, and my personal experiences with God, and the fact that in my heart I know him to be real. So no matter what 'evidence' was thrown at me, my mind would still not be swayed. Many will call me ignorant and close-minded for believing that, but go ahead; do your worst. I know in my heart without a doubt what is true and what is not, and I'll take my creator's word for it over any number of men's words :)
So why are some people afraid of the concept of God and try so hard to disprove it? I know this answer does not apply to everyone, but I believe some people are genuinely afraid. They are afraid that if they were allowed to simply believe that God is the answer and that God is real, that they would then have to be held accountable for their sins. If God is nonexistent, than we can do whatever we want without having to worry about being held accountable for eternity. But if he does exist, then we do have to worry about being judged for our sins. The great thing about that is that he sent his son Christ to die for our sins, so that we can live forever with him in Heaven!An acquaintance of mind de-friended me on facebook last night. I hadn't even said anything to him. He simply happened upon my facebook one night, and saw some of my views on God, and said to me something along the lines of 'This is the most ignorant, close-minded thing I have ever read on facebook! I am appalled! But I suppose you must be quite ignorant in general; I mean come on, believe the earth was created in 7 days? That's ignorance."
I fully realize that not everyone agrees with my viewpoints, and others perceive me as ignorant for my views. But honestly, I think it is more ignorant to believe in Evolution than it is to be able to believe in Creationism. I know I am in the minority in this view, but seriously, with all of the evidences modern science has shown, from DNA, to the precise accurate tilt of the earth's axis, to the earth's EXACT distance from the sun where if it was any closer it would burn, and any further it would freeze, to the complexities of the cell...All of this to me screams that there is a creator and that there must have been an intelligent designer. All of this couldn't have just happened by chance. So go ahead, keep on calling me ignorant for my beliefs, but I think it is quite ignorant to ignore the wonders of God that surround us everywhere!
It's not that science is "biased" toward evolution...evolution is accepted because there is tremendous evidence supporting it moreso that almost anything in science.
"There are thousands of legitimate scientists all over the world who believe the theory of Intelligent Design, not Creationism, holds validity, and that life around us undeniably shows that there was some kind of grand designer, whether he is God or aliens. "
ID is not science by any means, but rather is pseudoscience. This designer is laced with arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, and arguments from "complexity." Just because something is difficult to understand or not explained at the moment doesn't mean that a supernatural being did it. Imagine in the past when we knew nothing about the chemical composition of stars, consciousness, thunder and lightning. As we "unweave the rainbow," we gain understanding about our world and gods become less plausible.
If you'd like to read about great refutations to common ID arguments, please visit TALKorigins.org and look around. It's a great resource.
Of course science is self-correcting...and that's the point. Science is simply our best understanding about our universe. Once we find new evidence, the old ideas go away and new idea emerge. Might we be wrong about everything today? Sure, and that's the beauty of science...it's self correcting and open to change.
Sure, there are paradigms in science and theories that people will defend tooth and nail, but what really matters is the evidence that you can marshal and how you deliver the parcel. ID has no good arguments and is not accepted by scientists for a reason....it's also unfalsifiable, untestable, not making predictions, etc, etc.
"The Bible not only contains zero scientific errors, but also makes accurate scientific statements, which would not be discovered until centuries later."
Umm...the Bible is not a scientific book. It's a religious book written by believers for believers. We'd be very silly looking for science in the Bible. Let's see.....two fo every species on a boat, people coming back from the dead, everything being created, people living past 100 years old. God isn't science. Religion isn't science. The Bible is not meant to be taken as a literal book and much is lost if you take it that way. I certainly don't believe that any gods exist, but we're foolish if we're looking at the Bible for science.
It's very easy to "rationalize" passages in the Bible or any long book for that matter to fit with what we know today and tailor it to our liking...but let's not only look at the supposed hits, let's look at the misses.
" Now his THEORY, is taught in most of our schools as FACT. " Right, evolution is a theory, a framework for how something works, not a simple guess or hypothesis. Evolution, though is true. Living beings do share common ancestry and species experience gradual change over time.
"
Darwin had no idea of the world of the cell, and what it really entailed. There is a WHOLE ENTIRE world in every cell that science had previously been oblivious to."
Great, it doesn't matter what Darwin knew because we base what we know off of our current knowledge. Freud was wrong about many things in psychology, but are we going to throw everything away and discount clinical studies and progress on understanding human though?
"Just seeing the complexities of life, of animals such as the humming bird, of the cell, of DNA, it CRIES that there HAS to have been a creator! Whether this creator is God or not, all of this couldn't have simply happened by chance!"
Complexity, complexity, complexity....The idea that something is complicated doesn't mean that there had to be an intelligent designer. Also, evolution is not "chance," but rather very deliberate change paired with mutation over a very long period of time. Evolution is the exact opposite of chance. You're also confusing the origin of life (abiogenesis) with evolution, please don't do that.
"The existence of God cannot be undeniably proven in such a way that every single person will believe it; and it cannot be disproven in such a way."
Christianity makes very specific claims about the universe, a god, miracles, etc and there is no good reason to believe any of these claims being made. You certainly can't "disprove" something (you know, pinky the invisible pink unicorn could be hiding! you can't say he doesn't exist!), but the burden of proof is on the theist, the person making the claim. If you can't give good reason for me to accept your claim, I'm not going to accept it. Imagine if I were to tell you "I can fly." You would ask me to demonstrate this and give you a good reason for believing this. You would not accept me saying "Well, I can't undebiably prove it and you can't disprove it, nah, nah, nah, ne, poo, poo." If I can't give you a good reason for my claim, it ought not be accepted. You certainly don't believe the millions of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen Elvis come back, etc, etc.
"God created mankind so that they would have FAITH in him, and trust in God."
How do you know this? How do you know that this creator even exists? How do you know his attributes, what he thinks, how he acts, what he values, etc?
Also, these reasons give no weight to the existence of this being. Imagine if I said "the loch ness monster is in the loch and if he revealed himself, there'd be no point for people believing in him and the myth would be destroyed! He wants to test you and to believe in him!"
Using the Bible for "Evidence" is no good until you demonstrate that the bible is a reliable document and a testimony to the existance of God. Would I be justified in using my copy of the Mahabharata to demonstrate that Krishna exists? Certainly not, unless I can demonstrate that it is a reliable document.
The ontological argument fails tremendously:
Achilles is the greatest warrior imaginable.
The greatest being that exists is greater than one who doesn't.
Therefore, Achilles exists.
This is obviously false. The idea that I can think of a great concept does not prove that it exists.
Arguments from fine-tuning also fail tremendously.
Objection 1: There are no other universes to compare to
Why is this universe a perfect one? Other universes may be more suitable for life or may have been designed to be better suitable for life. We only have one planet in which life does exist to actually observe, while other planets that may have life may be better suitable.
Objection 2: The eventual heat death of the earth
The sun is eventually going to fizzle and all forms of life on earth will be extinct. Earth will be uninhabitable. Some design.
Objection 3: Evolution is a fact, not design. We don't need a designer to explain the evolution of lifeforms.
Evolution sufficiently explains how life progressed and is a more than plausible naturalistic explanation of life. We can't just automatically say "God started the universe" because we don't know the facts. We don't need an intelligent designer or creator of the universe to explain it.
Objection 4: Natural disasters, viruses, harmful mutations, and spontaneous abortions are contrary to a perfect universe.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are natural occurrences that destroy life on the earth. A perfect universe created for humans and other life should not include disasters like this. Diseases, genetic abnormalities, and birth defects ravage life. Spontaneous abortions show that the human body is imperfect and that births are not sufficiently designed to occur without issue.
Objection 5: 99.9% of everything that ever existed is now extinct.
"There are thousands of legitimate scientists all over the world who believe the theory of Intelligent Design, not Creationism, holds validity, and that life around us undeniably shows that there was some kind of grand designer, whether he is God or aliens. "
ID is not science by any means, but rather is pseudoscience. This designer is laced with arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, and arguments from "complexity." Just because something is difficult to understand or not explained at the moment doesn't mean that a supernatural being did it. Imagine in the past when we knew nothing about the chemical composition of stars, consciousness, thunder and lightning. As we "unweave the rainbow," we gain understanding about our world and gods become less plausible.
If you'd like to read about great refutations to common ID arguments, please visit TALKorigins.org and look around. It's a great resource.
Of course science is self-correcting...and that's the point. Science is simply our best understanding about our universe. Once we find new evidence, the old ideas go away and new idea emerge. Might we be wrong about everything today? Sure, and that's the beauty of science...it's self correcting and open to change.
Sure, there are paradigms in science and theories that people will defend tooth and nail, but what really matters is the evidence that you can marshal and how you deliver the parcel. ID has no good arguments and is not accepted by scientists for a reason....it's also unfalsifiable, untestable, not making predictions, etc, etc.
"The Bible not only contains zero scientific errors, but also makes accurate scientific statements, which would not be discovered until centuries later."
Umm...the Bible is not a scientific book. It's a religious book written by believers for believers. We'd be very silly looking for science in the Bible. Let's see.....two fo every species on a boat, people coming back from the dead, everything being created, people living past 100 years old. God isn't science. Religion isn't science. The Bible is not meant to be taken as a literal book and much is lost if you take it that way. I certainly don't believe that any gods exist, but we're foolish if we're looking at the Bible for science.
It's very easy to "rationalize" passages in the Bible or any long book for that matter to fit with what we know today and tailor it to our liking...but let's not only look at the supposed hits, let's look at the misses.
" Now his THEORY, is taught in most of our schools as FACT. " Right, evolution is a theory, a framework for how something works, not a simple guess or hypothesis. Evolution, though is true. Living beings do share common ancestry and species experience gradual change over time.
"
Darwin had no idea of the world of the cell, and what it really entailed. There is a WHOLE ENTIRE world in every cell that science had previously been oblivious to."
Great, it doesn't matter what Darwin knew because we base what we know off of our current knowledge. Freud was wrong about many things in psychology, but are we going to throw everything away and discount clinical studies and progress on understanding human though?
"Just seeing the complexities of life, of animals such as the humming bird, of the cell, of DNA, it CRIES that there HAS to have been a creator! Whether this creator is God or not, all of this couldn't have simply happened by chance!"
Complexity, complexity, complexity....The idea that something is complicated doesn't mean that there had to be an intelligent designer. Also, evolution is not "chance," but rather very deliberate change paired with mutation over a very long period of time. Evolution is the exact opposite of chance. You're also confusing the origin of life (abiogenesis) with evolution, please don't do that.
"The existence of God cannot be undeniably proven in such a way that every single person will believe it; and it cannot be disproven in such a way."
Christianity makes very specific claims about the universe, a god, miracles, etc and there is no good reason to believe any of these claims being made. You certainly can't "disprove" something (you know, pinky the invisible pink unicorn could be hiding! you can't say he doesn't exist!), but the burden of proof is on the theist, the person making the claim. If you can't give good reason for me to accept your claim, I'm not going to accept it. Imagine if I were to tell you "I can fly." You would ask me to demonstrate this and give you a good reason for believing this. You would not accept me saying "Well, I can't undebiably prove it and you can't disprove it, nah, nah, nah, ne, poo, poo." If I can't give you a good reason for my claim, it ought not be accepted. You certainly don't believe the millions of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen Elvis come back, etc, etc.
"God created mankind so that they would have FAITH in him, and trust in God."
How do you know this? How do you know that this creator even exists? How do you know his attributes, what he thinks, how he acts, what he values, etc?
Also, these reasons give no weight to the existence of this being. Imagine if I said "the loch ness monster is in the loch and if he revealed himself, there'd be no point for people believing in him and the myth would be destroyed! He wants to test you and to believe in him!"
Using the Bible for "Evidence" is no good until you demonstrate that the bible is a reliable document and a testimony to the existance of God. Would I be justified in using my copy of the Mahabharata to demonstrate that Krishna exists? Certainly not, unless I can demonstrate that it is a reliable document.
The ontological argument fails tremendously:
Achilles is the greatest warrior imaginable.
The greatest being that exists is greater than one who doesn't.
Therefore, Achilles exists.
This is obviously false. The idea that I can think of a great concept does not prove that it exists.
Arguments from fine-tuning also fail tremendously.
Objection 1: There are no other universes to compare to
Why is this universe a perfect one? Other universes may be more suitable for life or may have been designed to be better suitable for life. We only have one planet in which life does exist to actually observe, while other planets that may have life may be better suitable.
Objection 2: The eventual heat death of the earth
The sun is eventually going to fizzle and all forms of life on earth will be extinct. Earth will be uninhabitable. Some design.
Objection 3: Evolution is a fact, not design. We don't need a designer to explain the evolution of lifeforms.
Evolution sufficiently explains how life progressed and is a more than plausible naturalistic explanation of life. We can't just automatically say "God started the universe" because we don't know the facts. We don't need an intelligent designer or creator of the universe to explain it.
Objection 4: Natural disasters, viruses, harmful mutations, and spontaneous abortions are contrary to a perfect universe.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are natural occurrences that destroy life on the earth. A perfect universe created for humans and other life should not include disasters like this. Diseases, genetic abnormalities, and birth defects ravage life. Spontaneous abortions show that the human body is imperfect and that births are not sufficiently designed to occur without issue.
Objection 5: 99.9% of everything that ever existed is now extinct.
This argument is saying that the chances of all aspects of life just happening 'by chance' is too great, and screams that there must have been some kind of intelligent designer.
Again, just because something is complex doesn't mean God did it. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean God did it.
"Every single scientist in existence will look at some object and say 'this just didn't poof from thin air into existence, there was some kind of designer of this object.' "
What? Who is saying that "everything poofed into existence?" Again, you're confusing abiogenesis, the big bang, and evolution. The big bang theory states that all matter was condensed and expanded. All that exists is a rearrangement of already existing molecules. Also, scientists don't look at objects and think about God. They think about the natural world...and God is supernatural.
"Think of the complexities of a computer, or even something as simple as a shoe. These things just didn't appear. They were designed. There was a designer who had a grand plan."
You can't go from humans making things to a supernatural being making things just because what humans make is "complex." Why can't we just say "I don't know everything about the universe and perhaps there is a naturalistic explanation instead of a supernatural one?"
Would you go to a magic show and say "Hmmm....Wow! I can't imagine how that guy sawed that woman in half! There must have been a supernatural intervention!"
"Another argument is the cosmological argument. "
The cosmological argument fails. "effect" breaks down on the quantum level and particles pop in and out of existence. The big bang, perhaps, could be the same exact thing. It's incoherent to talk about "what caused the big bang" because the big bang is the beginning of time as we know it. Might there have been a universe before? Sure, there might have been, but we've no compelling evidence for it...just like with a creator.
Also, why assume the first cause, if there is one, is god like? Why can't it be a natural event or something? You also state that "god is uncaused" but first say that "everything has a cause" Why can you exclude God from this? That is special pleading. Why can't we also say "the universe is uncaused?"
"Another argument is the moral argument."
This also fails. Morality is a concept developed by humans so that we can understand our actions, talk about right and wrong, etc. We don't need God to explain why we behave well and behave poorly. About 99% of us understand that we enjoy personal freedoms, to be exempt from harm, and want to be treated well. We project this onto others and behave for reaons of goodness, survival, instinct, fear, etc. We don't need God to explain this. We worked out that it's wrong to murder, rape, etc because we want socieities to flourish and progress...we also don't want to be raped. We almost certainly need order to live in a stable community and enjoy this luxury. I don't need threats of Hell or advice from a ~2000 year old book to behave well. My life experiences and my education have imbued me with the yearning to be good.
"You mean to tell me that all societies over the course of all history just happened by chance to generally believe that all of these things are morally wrong, without having any cause or reason for believing that these things are morally wrong?"
This wasn't by chance at all, but rather the product of cooperation, government, philosophy, and common sense. I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people.
"I believe what I believe based on my faith in God, and my personal experiences with God, and the fact that in my heart I know him to be real. So no matter what 'evidence' was thrown at me, my mind would still not be swayed. "
You just contradicted almost everything you typed above. You try to provide arguments and reasons, but now you're saying "no matter what, I believe in my heart." You know, children around the world believe in Santa Claus although there is no evidence, from their personal experiences, etc. Beliefs about reality are not internally justified. You need good reasons and arguments to posit things about reality. "Faith" is no good reason to suggest something exists. You certainly wouldn't have faith regarding Thor, Posideon, Vishnu, Lord Xenu, etc. Again, we atheists don't need the evidence...the burden is on you.
"I know in my heart without a doubt what is true and what is not, and I'll take my creator's word for it over any number of men's words :)"
I know in my heart that Santa Claus exists. He gives me reason to be good and I can't imagine a universe without him. I'll take his word for it over men's words. See how ridiculous this is?
"So why are some people afraid of the concept of God and try so hard to disprove it? "
Again, you can't "disprove" God. People aren't afraid, they come to non-belief because of reason, logical arguments, and obvious insanity like the problem of evil, inconsistent revelations, no evidence, etc. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in any gods...this is a statement of non-belief, not a statement of denial of reality.
"If God is nonexistent, than we can do whatever we want without having to worry about being held accountable for eternity. "
So, if God doesn't exist would you suddenly find it permissible for people to go out and rape, pillage, and murder? Of course not. If people are only good because of God, we're quite a sorry lot. I'm good because I care about my reputation, the well-being of others, don't want to be arrested, etc. If your claim were correct, non-believers would be out murdering every day and the least theistic countries would be constant killing grounds. I'm accountable to myself and others, not God...and I'm fine without him.
"But honestly, I think it is more ignorant to believe in Evolution than it is to be able to believe in Creationism."
Nobody "believes" in evolution. It requires no faith, but is based on hard evidence. You don't "believe" in planetary motion, gravity, or germ theory. It's not ignorant to accept that, based on the evidence, evolution occurred.
Again, just because something is complex doesn't mean God did it. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean God did it.
"Every single scientist in existence will look at some object and say 'this just didn't poof from thin air into existence, there was some kind of designer of this object.' "
What? Who is saying that "everything poofed into existence?" Again, you're confusing abiogenesis, the big bang, and evolution. The big bang theory states that all matter was condensed and expanded. All that exists is a rearrangement of already existing molecules. Also, scientists don't look at objects and think about God. They think about the natural world...and God is supernatural.
"Think of the complexities of a computer, or even something as simple as a shoe. These things just didn't appear. They were designed. There was a designer who had a grand plan."
You can't go from humans making things to a supernatural being making things just because what humans make is "complex." Why can't we just say "I don't know everything about the universe and perhaps there is a naturalistic explanation instead of a supernatural one?"
Would you go to a magic show and say "Hmmm....Wow! I can't imagine how that guy sawed that woman in half! There must have been a supernatural intervention!"
"Another argument is the cosmological argument. "
The cosmological argument fails. "effect" breaks down on the quantum level and particles pop in and out of existence. The big bang, perhaps, could be the same exact thing. It's incoherent to talk about "what caused the big bang" because the big bang is the beginning of time as we know it. Might there have been a universe before? Sure, there might have been, but we've no compelling evidence for it...just like with a creator.
Also, why assume the first cause, if there is one, is god like? Why can't it be a natural event or something? You also state that "god is uncaused" but first say that "everything has a cause" Why can you exclude God from this? That is special pleading. Why can't we also say "the universe is uncaused?"
"Another argument is the moral argument."
This also fails. Morality is a concept developed by humans so that we can understand our actions, talk about right and wrong, etc. We don't need God to explain why we behave well and behave poorly. About 99% of us understand that we enjoy personal freedoms, to be exempt from harm, and want to be treated well. We project this onto others and behave for reaons of goodness, survival, instinct, fear, etc. We don't need God to explain this. We worked out that it's wrong to murder, rape, etc because we want socieities to flourish and progress...we also don't want to be raped. We almost certainly need order to live in a stable community and enjoy this luxury. I don't need threats of Hell or advice from a ~2000 year old book to behave well. My life experiences and my education have imbued me with the yearning to be good.
"You mean to tell me that all societies over the course of all history just happened by chance to generally believe that all of these things are morally wrong, without having any cause or reason for believing that these things are morally wrong?"
This wasn't by chance at all, but rather the product of cooperation, government, philosophy, and common sense. I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people.
"I believe what I believe based on my faith in God, and my personal experiences with God, and the fact that in my heart I know him to be real. So no matter what 'evidence' was thrown at me, my mind would still not be swayed. "
You just contradicted almost everything you typed above. You try to provide arguments and reasons, but now you're saying "no matter what, I believe in my heart." You know, children around the world believe in Santa Claus although there is no evidence, from their personal experiences, etc. Beliefs about reality are not internally justified. You need good reasons and arguments to posit things about reality. "Faith" is no good reason to suggest something exists. You certainly wouldn't have faith regarding Thor, Posideon, Vishnu, Lord Xenu, etc. Again, we atheists don't need the evidence...the burden is on you.
"I know in my heart without a doubt what is true and what is not, and I'll take my creator's word for it over any number of men's words :)"
I know in my heart that Santa Claus exists. He gives me reason to be good and I can't imagine a universe without him. I'll take his word for it over men's words. See how ridiculous this is?
"So why are some people afraid of the concept of God and try so hard to disprove it? "
Again, you can't "disprove" God. People aren't afraid, they come to non-belief because of reason, logical arguments, and obvious insanity like the problem of evil, inconsistent revelations, no evidence, etc. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in any gods...this is a statement of non-belief, not a statement of denial of reality.
"If God is nonexistent, than we can do whatever we want without having to worry about being held accountable for eternity. "
So, if God doesn't exist would you suddenly find it permissible for people to go out and rape, pillage, and murder? Of course not. If people are only good because of God, we're quite a sorry lot. I'm good because I care about my reputation, the well-being of others, don't want to be arrested, etc. If your claim were correct, non-believers would be out murdering every day and the least theistic countries would be constant killing grounds. I'm accountable to myself and others, not God...and I'm fine without him.
"But honestly, I think it is more ignorant to believe in Evolution than it is to be able to believe in Creationism."
Nobody "believes" in evolution. It requires no faith, but is based on hard evidence. You don't "believe" in planetary motion, gravity, or germ theory. It's not ignorant to accept that, based on the evidence, evolution occurred.