A discussion between myself and an atheist.
-MATT
Happy to hear from you,
I must say with all honesty that I was once an atheist and though I was brought up in a Christian home, church was never practiced. I challenged the idea of God because I figured that evolution had a grasp of things and that anyone would believe otherwise was a nutcase. The media added fuel to my atheist fire by coming out with movies and books (The god Delusion and Religulous). Over the course of studying both in the science realm and philosophical as well my arguments were getting weaker and weaker to the point where If I were to look logically at both sides of the argument either position took a great deal of faith. You could have shown me countless reasons and evidences as to why atheism falls to its own beliefs by science and morality and still I wouldn't have budged, I was spiritually blind. I keep in contact with many who chose to either change their worldview to atheism and those who have converted to Christianity. A lot of the former Christians I have spoken with the majority reason behind their change in worldview is both, moral dilemma and lack of understanding in creation. There is a reason why I have yet to respond to your arguments involving Christianity and Jesus. If you do not believe in God then it goes without saying that you would doubt the existence of the Christian God and it will also follow that you would doubt the very existence and divine nature of Jesus. Like all arguments its best to start the discussion from the beginning of the disagreement which is, whether or not God exists. We can start this discussion in one of two ways, the philosophical standpoint or by science, I will allow you to decide, but before we do that I will respond to your proposal of the good old miller experiment.
"I view so far we have proved through science that we have evolved form the most basic of organisms and u may disagree But the majority of scientists in the world view evolution as the was we came to be. As of right now we have gone that far and it may take time or we may never know how the first cell originated. Experiment wise we have proved amino acids can form in the early earth stage".
Believe it or not you have just explained to me your demonstration of faith in science. There are two things that no man has done on and that is prove God does not exists with 100% infallible evidence and no man has proven Gods existence with 100% infallible evidence. You place a great deal of faith in Millers experiment the origin of life. Even the most basic of organisms are not as basic as you think. Darwin was not able to view living cells like we can today. He assumed that they were simple substances (which they are not). The most basic of cells, for example the single celled amoeba has enough information encoded into that would fill 1,000 Encyclopedia Britannica's. There are also irreducibly complex organisms that cannot function properly if one part of the organism is missing. Irreducibly complex cells do not sporadically create themselves. How does gradual evolution explain this? Dawkins did attempt to explain gradual evolution of the eye (how did you get those peepers). But he sets the reader up by thinking these are mere simple interconnections that came about with 0 chance of error. While most
mutations are errors and do not promote progress. If you would like we can go into more detail but I will bring this back to millers experiment. I will take on each proposal in detail.
According to many researchers today, an even more serious problem is the fact that the atmosphere of the early earth was very different from what Miller assumed. Research has since drawn Miller's hypothetical atmosphere into question, causing many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings. The problem was stated as follows: the accepted picture of the earth's early atmosphere has changed: It was probably O2 rich with some nitrogen, a less reactive mixture than Miller's, or it might have been composed largely of carbon dioxide, which would greatly deter the development of organic compounds. A major source of gases was believed to be volcanoes, and since modern-day volcanoes emit CO, CO2, N2 and water vapor, it was considered likely that these gases were very abundant in the early atmosphere. In contrast, it is now believed that H2, CH4 and NH3 probably were not major components of the early atmosphere. Hydrogen being extremely light would have risen out of the earth's atmosphere before being able to collect. Furthermore, many scientists now believe that the early atmosphere probably did not play a major role in the chemical reactions leading to life. Although the composition of the atmosphere of the early earth is now believed to have consisted of large amounts of carbon dioxide, this conclusion still involves much speculation. Most researchers also now believe that some O2 was present on the early earth because it contained much water vapor, and photo dissociation of water in the upper layers of the atmosphere produces oxygen. Another reason is that large amounts of oxidized materials exist in the Precambrian geological strata.
To produce even non-functional amino acids and proteins, researchers must highly control the experiment in various ways because the very conditions hypothesized to create amino acids also rapidly destroy proteins. Examples include thermal denaturing of proteins by breaking apart their hydrogen bonds and disrupting the hydrophobic attraction between non-polar side groups. Very few proteins remain biologically active above 50 C, or below about 30C, and most require very narrow conditions. Cooking food is a good example of using heat to denature protein, and refrigeration of using cold to slow down biological activity. As any molecular biologist knows from daily lab work, the pH also must be strictly regulated. Too much acid or base adversely affects the hydrogen bonding between polar R groups and also disrupts the ionic bonds formed by the salt bridges in protein.
Miller had to deal with the fact that the common cross-reactions of biochemical reaction products cause destruction or interfere with amino acid production. All compounds that interfere with bonding must be isolated or they will destroy the proteins. Therefore, Miller had to remove many contaminants and impurities to obtain pure compounds that are not normally found in life. Otherwise, his apparatus would have produced many destructive cross-reactions.
Also, heavy metal ions such as Ag, Pb and Hg2 must be isolated from proteins because they disrupt the protein's disulfide bonds, causing the protein to denature. As an example, a dilute (1%) AgNO3 solution is placed in the eyes of newborn babies to destroy the bacteria that cause gonorrhea. Many heavy metal ions are very toxic if ingested because they severely disrupt protein structure, especially enzymes. Another problem is that many of the other compounds necessary for life, such as sugar, also react strongly with amino acids and affect amino acid synthesis. For example, Miller and others had to use a sugar-free environment in their experiments. Miller stopped his experiment after just a few days, but if it had been allowed to go on, would the compounds he produced be destroyed or would they produce more complex amino acids? Research on Murchison meteorites found that natural conditions produce compounds much like Miller's, and the result is stable, indicating that further time would not produce any new products.
Many speculate that ultraviolet light was the source used to create life, but UV is highly toxic to life, and is, in fact, often used to destroy life (thus UV lights are used in hospitals to kill micro-organisms). The intensity of the destructive long wavelengths exceeds that of the constructive short ones, and the quantum efficiency of destruction is much higher than that for construction as well. This means that destruction of
amino acids are four to five orders of magnitude higher than construction. In Miller's UV experiments, he used a select wavelength to produce amino acids and screened out other wavelengths because they destroy amino acids. Yet both chemical-building and chemical-destroying light exists in sunlight. Amino acids are actually very delicate and readily break down under natural sunlight. The Miller-Urey experiment also had strategically designed traps to remove the products from the radiation before they could be destroyed. On a primitive earth, any amino acids formed in the atmosphere would be destroyed long before they could be removed. Even the ocean would not protect them, because UV penetrates several meters of liquid water-you can even sunburn under water. This indicates that the conditions on the early earth could never have been favorable for abiogenesis. Even simple movement can cause major protein damage: whipping cream or beating egg whites is one way of using mechanical agitation to deliberately denature protein (the whipping stretches the polypeptide chains until the bonds break). This
experiment also fails to factor in hydrolysis, which is decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water. So much for the primordial soup. We also see that extreme temperatures destroys basics cells as well (hot
vents).
"Everyone knows that liquid water is essential for humans to survive. In fact, it is essential in the chemistry of all biological systems. Water (chem window: give link to water module) provides the medium in which the transport of molecules can occur in reactions". Water only works when
organisms have established before that, cells have no protection from hydrolysis. I can go into more detail about left handed and right handed amino acids, the types of amino acids that were found (hydrogen cyanide=poison) and DNA spontaneously created information (impossible) but I don't want to drag this out further than necessary. Where you would like to go from here is your choice. Either the philosophical approach to the possibility of God, or the scientific. It would be futile to argue any further, if origin is skipped.LEE-
Sry m8 wanted to read up some on some things I never looked deep into so farit's been physics, theology, and evolution.So I looked into your amino acid idea and how it's a discrediting to my view but u still lack to see what I view. I view so far we have proved through science that we have evolved form the most basic of organisms and u may disagree But the majority of scientists in the world view evolution as the was we came to be. As of right now we have gone that far and it may take time or we may never know how the first cell originated. Experiment wise we
have proved amino acids can form in the early earth stage.
Or do your own search on the experiment
We have gone that far in 150 years from Darwin's idea to knowing how we evolved and how the process proceeded so for me I can take my time and wait I'm not jumping to the first thing that seems pleasing like religion to provide to as how we exist. In the end ill state my view as this finally. I see science as how we originated and so far it proves correct and if a religion is proved I'll believe in it with no problem I just go with the one the holds the proof and so far science has the baton.
So far u still have yet to prove anything for your case even hurdling over the hero question u have put no proof to your side just thoughts and views from yourself and circle arguments (god to bible, bible to god). I will say I'm not arrogant if u seem me that way I'm sry but it's because this is a debate and I'm asking hard stuff to answer that's why a lot of ppl stop debating me they don't want to do un bias searches for truth and open their mind. If that sounds mean I'm again sry but it's true you're a very intelligent guy I give u that 100% no doubt but I feel u have never seen my side where to I used to pray nightly when I believed. As for the being smarter than god then yes the most basic of mind is smarter because like Zeus, allah, santa, the easter bunny, and all other myths they are man made and I wait for u to prove that wrong. I can even prove how christians stole pagan rituals and holidays and made them their own. Here in America it has made me sick to see gays being denied rights every American holds so far the proponents of prop 8 have lacked any proof on why it should be kept. They just use bias sided religious views and screen them as legitimate reasons. That's how manipulative religion is and how it can turn minds on its fellow man. I see the universe as a beautiful thing that we have discovered little
about.
So I'm down to prove evolution to you or disprove religion your call. If evolution then the bible wont help u it will be about things like carbon and argon dating and the fossil record. If religion then you need to have a open mind and not deny things because they are not pleasing to your view. Sry bout a harsh tone but decided to speak what I had in my mind since I can see you are a college man with a great future and good deal of intelligence so I need to work harder here than anyone I've debated before. I fear u may say I'm wrong but I get the vibe u were brought up religious and a majority of your friends and family are religious if so there lies the problem of not wanting to explore. There is a feeling a lot of my non religious friends felt that co existed to what started my doubt. When u finally get the feeling of knowing how insignificant u are to the universe and how little u mean to it compared to things such as a planet or even a galaxy. Then u will see the beauty and a sense of we aren't the center of the universe like religion preaches.
Hope to hear from ya m8 and cant wait for a solid topic to pick apart
between u and I.Matt-
I apologize for taking so long to respond I was able to catch a bit of a vacation back home so I have been away from my office. I read through your response and looked at the arguments you have proposed. I'd like to first start off by quoting Kai Nielsen who is an atheist "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false ... All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists". By attempting to point out these so called faults
in Christianity hardly adds weight to your belief in the origin of the universe which you have yet to come up with an alternative. I will say this again, YES! If The Bible is read at face value and no spiritual thought is involved you will find what appears to be contradictions. But in order to state with 100% confidence that there are faults you must have the following; a complete understanding of society from 1400 B.C. to A.D. 90, critiqued the massive amounts of manuscripts to substantiate your belief and
also...claim to be smarter than God. I checked out the experiments and website you sent me, the website merely described the different types of evolution and the nature of it which was basic review, I'm afraid I didn't get anything out of it. I believe you still hold the assumption that I know hardly a thing about evolution so I would suggest we chew on that for awhile.
I have been studying microbiology for quite some time now and hope to get my Masters in it. Microbiology has dealt a severe blow to the Darwinian theory. The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Colossians 1:16; John 1:1-3; Revelation 4:11). While these passages rule out any possibility of Darwinian evolution, they do allow for variation within a created kind. Evolutionists state that life originated by natural processes about 3.8 billion years ago. Is there any evidence for this happening? There is a theoretical physicist by the name of Freeman Dyson who is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science who stated, "Concerning the origin of life itself, the watershed between chemistry and biology, the transition between lifeless chemical activity and organized biological metabolism, there is no direct evidence at all. The crucial transition from disorder to order left behind no observable traces". Since the origin of life has never been observed, this is a major hurdle. We are left with the question "Is the origin of life by naturalistic processes possible?" We can examine two areas; The success of scientists in creating life or the components of a living cell and second the probability that such an event could occur. Cells are made up of thousands of components. One of these components is protein. Proteins are large molecules made up of a chain of amino acids. In order to get a protein useful for life, the correct amino acids must be linked together in the right order. How easy is this and does it happen naturally? There are large hurdles that evolutionary process must overcome in order to build a biological protein. Protein molecules contain very specific arrangements of amino acids. Even one missing or incorrect amino acid can lead to problems with the protein's function. Let's go over some of the
parameters that affect the formation of a single protein. First, there are over 300 different types of amino acids. However, only 20 different amino acids are used in life. This means that in order to have life, the selection process for building proteins must be very discriminating. Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in two shapes (left-handed and right handed forms). Only left handed amino acids are used in biological proteins; however, the natural tendency is for the left- and right-handed amino acid molecules to bond indiscriminately. Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, if there was a pond of chemicals ("primordial soup"), it would have been diluted with many of the wrong types of amino acids and other chemicals available for bonding, making the proper amino acids no longer usable. Fifth, amino acids require an energy source for bonding. Raw energy from the sun needs to be captured and converted into usable energy. Where did the energy converter come from? It would require energy to build this biological machine. Sixth, proteins without the protection of the cell membrane would disintegrate in water (hydrolysis), disintegrate in an atmosphere containing oxygen, and disintegrate due to the ultraviolet rays
of the sun if there was no oxygen present to from the protective ozone layer. Natural selection cannot be invoked at the pre-biotic level. The first living cell must be in place before natural selection can function. Chance protein formation has always been accepted as a matter of faith by evolutionists. Amino Acids do not bond together to make proteins, they also require DNA to get the right amino acids. Where did DNA come from? The complexity and dimensions of the human body are staggering. The probability of assembling 60 trillion cells that form specific organs that all work together to form a single human being in the evolutionary time scale of 3.8 billion years is a giant leap of faith. I know I have skimmed the surface of cells, I kept this short because to go further into irreducibly complex organisms will take much more time and I am not sure if you are ready or interested to get into that. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution, "Darwins black box" (I would suggest checking out the bacterial flagellum and ATP). Once again I do believe it will be your pride that keeps you from believing
anything I have to say, You have demonstrated this by tattooing the atheist symbol on your arm... strong commitment claiming to know without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God.
It appears you may have misunderstood my previous email. To prevent this from happening again I will be more than happy to respond to all of your statements. This will be lengthy but if you are truly interested in debate, I am sure you won’t mind. I will also start with a definition.
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
You sir have a “belief”, your religion (which I am positive you will oppose) is science. You “believe” that through science you will obtain knowledge of the “cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. If you cannot see past the obvious logical statement here then there is a delusion issue but not on my part.
“I'd believe we are just a alien experiment before there is a god because at least that has some ground compared to a god which reminds me of a good question to ask you”.
You don’t want there to be a God which is why you refuse to accept any evidence. This is quite sad because you are the type that even if presented 100% evidence for intelligent design you wouldn’t accept it which is once again not scientific or even mature. You seem to be opposed what may potentially convict or change your mind; this is not a search for truth but is delusional. Though I feel to carry on may be pointless I will answer your question. God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence. When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning at the moment of creation (i.e. the Big Bang). In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time. Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe. God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature and not scientific).
“You go off a idea that a things has always existed and on it's own created everything we know. This thing also controls the past present and future and can not be seen. There is not 1 shed of proof of this thing and when held to what we know about life and the universe is just plain silly”.
There is not one shred of evidence for alien’s but for some reason you would accept their existence over God’s… So far this is looking more like a grudge fed disbelief you hold. You have stated your view is flawed and that there are possible alternatives but you are completely against the possibility of God; this is a delusion (a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact). Organisms are run by highly complex machines that are irreducibly complex which gradual evolution cannot explain. Until you can give me logical and sound reason for your argument against Intelligent Design (which you have still failed to do) then it is not logically possible to say that you know without a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. The real question is, are you a man of logic or do you wish to believe only what validates your comfort?
“As for life being meaningless if you actually feel the way you stated then you have a lot to learn still. Yes we are a accident of natural processes but life is not meaningless and your confusing a state of mind with something dealing with evolution. The only thing that matters is survival and that is what natural selection was about survive and those species that did flourished. Due to religion you have been pulled to the idea that life must have a meaning outside just surviving. As for Ethics with the process of science again we have shown that ethics are just a part of evolution. I’m more likely to survive if I have help so as a early animal I just learned to help and be helped. I can keep going but just wanted to show you again religion is not needed for ethics it just aids to survival the one and only thing that matters and was around before humans animals display ethics”.
I do very much so believe that Life has meaning but survival and natural selection does not explain ethics. Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life; I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right. But we've got to be very careful here. The question here is not: Must we believe in God in order to live a moral life? I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? I think we can. Rather, the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist? I just don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God the morality evolved by Homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really morally wrong. On the atheistic view, if you can escape the social consequences, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. And thus without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience. But the fact is that objective values do exist, and we all know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of physical objects. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse-aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations. Even Ruse himself (Michael Ruse, an atheist) admits, "The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5," Some things are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, self-sacrifice are really good. But if objective values cannot exist without God and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists. Ethics is not naturally selected. In almost all mammalian societies (herbivorous herd animals, carnivorous dogs and cats), ethics are selected against. In other words, he who has the biggest teeth, strongest muscles, most aggressiveness, etc. gets to mate the most (even exclusively, in most cases within the herd/pack). Genetics always selects those individuals who can produce the most offspring. Being nice doesn't cut it! Virtually no other primate species displays any kind of ethics. A chimpanzee would never be offended if someone stole another chimp's food. They only get mad when somebody steals their food.
"As for the next things you bring up you still go on to attack my view as faith. You still lack to see that I go for the provable and if it’s flawed or not I’m ok with that. Science proves more than any religion can hope and it has at least a basis for it’s claim with this being proved to this being proved and so forth. Religion goes blindly with no proof and so does the idea of a god. You claim you need faith to believe and I agree you do need faith to believe because there is no evidence for your side so faith is required otherwise you see the flaws. I do like how you use science against science.
Thermodynamics is a branch of physics which deals with the energy and work of a system. As for law one I wish to ask what sources you have for the universe is losing energy because that’s a new one on me I did searching and found nothing m8. Thermodynamics is a process for closed systems so I don’t see how that has any relevance and I’ve seen this argument many times. You also seem to repeat the same things I hear in every argument about the tornado and such. Quotes from people don’t aid a person can say what they want but it’s whats provable that matters. Sorry even tho you disagree to the proof of what we “Currently know” about evolution and how it’s a proven process through experimentation.."
Religion is a set of beliefs my friend. You have a belief that the entire universe and life itself arose by chance… Not one person on the planet in their right mind will say that they have 100% infallible evidence that God does not exist. If you do “believe” you know 100% that I hate to say but that is a delusion you hold. The 1st law of thermodynamics can be explained here, Hint: Einstein discovered it.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics follows I would have assumed you figured this out in basic chemistry. If we must review this we can at your discretion but I will continue. As far as experimentation with evolution only variation has been discovered between species. Yes there have been genetically altered species but macroevolution has never been seen. These so called transitional fossils are not so transitional. They are full forms of separate species.
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory. “By the theory of natural selection,” he wrote, “all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day.” Thus in the past “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” But Darwin knew that the major animal groups, which modern biologists call “phyla” appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. And to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. So the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. Darwin defended his theory by citing the imperfection of the geological record. In particular, he argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed by heat, pressure, and erosion. Some of Darwin’s modern followers have likewise argued that Precambrian fossils existed but were later destroyed, or that Precambrian organisms were too small or too soft to have fossilized in the first place. Since 1859, however, paleontologists have discovered many Precambrian fossils, many of them microscopic or soft-bodied. As American paleobiologist William Schopf wrote in 1994, “The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials, is now recognized as incorrect.” If anything, the abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago, which modern biologists call “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology’s Big Bang” is better documented now than in Darwin’s time. According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues, the “explosion is real, it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was “even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”
“My whole argument I’ve been trying to place is that yes my side is flawed only due to what we currently know because new things are discovered daily. Your religion fails at all tests of a rational argument requiring proof. Evolution is a proven process due to experiments and we know somewhat how the universe started. These both contradict the need for a god yes flawed but still provable with a lot to learn which I don’t mind. We currently know this we currently know that later we will know more about it later and move past that as for now no religion can hold a true statement so if anything you can believe a god exists but your religion is made up. As I said before I don’t claim to know everything science doesn’t claim 100% that it was the big bang because there are other ideas scientifically based. You on the other hand claim 100% proof of everything and how it came to be. I can prove my side to what we know and what it claims but you cannot prove any claims on your side unless it’s by a process that requires no proof like a philosophical discussion”.
Simply stating that evolution is proven process does not validate your argument. We have discussed how the Miller/Urey experiment cuts its knees out from under itself and still you have not provided adequate evidence of species turning into different species. So proof does not look to be on your side if unable to present it. I claim no proof I believe in a transcending creator who holds all the answers to his creation. The intelligent design movement distinguishes natural cause and intelligent. We see this in irreducible complexity, functional complexity, and specified complexity (see also the moral argument, the teleological argument, and the cosmological argument). I have faith in God; Yes Human salvation demands the divine disclosure of truths surpassing reason. You have faith proof will eventually substantiate your claim. I have faith that the more we study the complexity of life the more we see the fingerprint of God place all over it. I can tell by the way you respond to my statements that you don’t want there to be a God. You would prefer aliens before even considering it. You have committed yourself prematurely to a belief that there is no god without sufficient evidence, which is dangerous. I will be more than happy to address why I believe in creation vs. evolution. There are many reasons beyond science why I believe in God. You don’t want to be wrong; I know this because when I was a proud atheist there was nothing anyone could tell me to believe otherwise. I had to accept being wrong through some big change in my life. I am more than happy to cut through all the skepticism just need to give me the arguments.
