Dogsrool, in the context of evolution-type stuff, creationism refers to the belief that we didn't evolve at all because we were created. Not general belief in creation.

Maybe. Evolution would be a form of creation, in a sense. That's my take, anyway.

Right, I agree. I was just trying to say that you shouldn't get offended when people call creationism anti-intellectual, because they mean that dismissing evolution entirely in favor of creation is what's anti-intellectual.

Evolution is not a theory of how the universe, or life, began

Thank you.

Evolution and Christian Creationism occupy two totally different spheres of science. Not to imply that the latter isn't wacky, non-science, of course.

Abiogenesis is the theory of the beginning of life.

The Big Bang is the theory of how the universe began.

At any rate, although I'm not a Christian, I don't think Science is incompatible with religion at all. What, you think God came down and explained DNA, random mutations and accretion disks (let alone string theory and wormholes and...) to Moses? I doubt it. Probably He just made some crap up that could be understood by the primitive people of the time. It's not like that's the important part of the story. It's like the text crawl at the beginning of Star Wars.

I always thought it would be funny if god programmed our brains to short circuit if people started thinking about how the universe began.

"So, there was this 'stuff' that condensed into a really dense area, which violently exploded. So, why was the stuff condensing, why did it explode, and why was it even there in the first place? Who or what made it? Has this matter always existed or was it somehow created?"

...

FATAL ERROR: BRAIN MALFUNCTION

I'm not following... is there, or isn't there physical evidence (from the creationist point of view).



Lol... Logic is just a generally accepted thinking pattern, refined by Aristotle (I think) and perfect throughout history. Read posts by Mort-Hog, or even me and the existence of logic is proven.

Strange argument.



Yeah man, I fully respect that. I very much respect belief in any kind of god, even though I don't give its existence much chance.

Point is, it's completely irrational to prefer the writings of a book that describes sea-monsters breathing fire, flat earth, etc... over the conclusions of hordes and hordes of scientists with PhD degrees of dozens of scientific branches, conclusions that actually fully complement eachother. I think it would be very arrogant to dismiss all that and then say umm, no, god made everything as it is now.

Actually let's get back to that sea-monster breathing fire. You talk about interpreting the Bible symbolically. How would you do that in this case. First, what sea-animal actually spits out fire that we know of?

Second, is it a coincidence that LOTS (!) of ancient Far East creation myths describe the defeat of a dragon by a divine prince? Funny that the Bible describes that fire-spitting sea-monster as being defeated by both Baal and God himself.

I'm probably interpreting that wrong though...



Doesn't Jesus say something like nobody gets to God, unless through me. Now, this statement could very well be interpreted symbolically, replacing 'me' with Jesus' qualities: good, generous, loving, etc... So it would say nobody gets to God, unless through being good, generous, loving, ...

Does this means that I have a chance too? What about criminals, who couldn't exercise those qualities because of their nature (genetic makeup etc...) or nurture (family, environment, even stuff like financial situation, etc...). Would Hitler, product of his era, genetics and personal history get into heaven? (Krokodile – The Hitler Card ® :))

I don't believe you can assign labels to ANYONE. There are no labels. Nature, nurture, situation and hardwired psychological dynamics is all there is. Someone post-WWII said we're living in a historical era of mercy. Meaning, in another time, in another place, in all probability, we would've flown that plane in september, we would've proudly saluted the Nazi-flag. You probably would've fed the lions, dogsrool. Obi, you probably would've spiked those nails. But that's okay, almost anyone would've.

This also means that the idea of heaven and hell needs some serious criticism.



Yep, that would be very educational. I still want to hear an objective argument pro creationism outside of the Old Testament though. I don't think the Old Testament deserves much credibility because of it's demented amount of lies, contradictions, inconsistencies(mostly because it absorbed info from lots of different ancient religions and myths) and questionable morals.



Check out the threads over at iidb.org. They're all very intelligent people constantly debunking creationism claims. They're also very tolerant, so they'll probably do a better case talking to you than me.



No, Obi. I want to hear what YOU think are valid arguments pro creationism.



Well, this can not be a valid argument until you do explain how God makes everything work. Until then, not accepted.

Also, 'look around you at creation'. It was looking around at creation that led writers in the Old Testament to believe that earth is flat. Nowadays, it leads people to believe that earth is 6000 years old (this is actually a common argument: doesn't it look young? – check iidb.org)



Scientific assumptions are based on (roughly, from the top of my head) observing, formulating, researching, reformulating, testing, trying to find exceptions, tweaking, reformulating. Until one single glitch is found in those scientific assumptions, it is valid as truth. This is also why we accept gravitational theory, and I dare you to find errors which make it untrue. If we analyze creationism the same way, we already fall short at the research stage of the process, meaning it has no significance as science or acceptable truth.



OK, that's good advice, and I'll try to do that. Also, what aquatic reptilian animal that breathes fire are you thinking of?



Science DOES contradict Christianity, if that may include biblical references, creation, geocentrism, ... I believe in a historical Jesus and all, being a very charismatic person with new morals and a message of hope in very very dark times, but as a science of nature it is pretty much 100% false.



You'll have to give me an example of 'relative proof' if you want me to be able to answer that.

I don't see any creation around me.

I see products of chemical reactions. I see products of biological processes. I see products of nuclear reactions. I see the results of planetary motion. I see the results of gravitational attraction. But I don't see any 'God'.


Science and Christianity do fundementally oppose eachother. They do clash. They cannot coexist. The whole concept of 'God', the whole idea of there being a supreme being that controls everything, it is utterly unscientific.

And this isn't just about Christianity, this is about all forms of superstition. Religion is simply a product of politics throughout history, and a result of scientific ignorance.

People saw that the Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. They asked themselves, why? How? They could be divided into two groups.

The first group would say "oh uhm er God does it, yeah..and uh.. the Sun goes into the Sea uhm and underneat the Earth yeah erm and comes up again lights up again on the other side! or something. yeah. but anyway, God does it. yes."

People had no idea how the Earth moved around the Sun, so explaining it away as God was understandable. They didn't have an answer, so they made one up. Some people just don't like feeling stupid.

The second group would say "I don't know".

This is the group that would make the achievements. This is the group that would keep thinking. In fact, they'd keep thinking until 1514, when Copernicus explained the motion of the Earth, and 1618, when Kepler refined them mathematically.

But the first group of people have become so tied up in their fictional explanation for things that they find it hard to accept this new, logical, sensible, scientific explanation for things. They cannot accept that they are simply wrong. God does not control planetary motion. God has no place in it. The first group will usually either continue to oppose the second group, or they'll say something like "Okay, so my God has nothing to do with this phenomenon, but he sure controls other things! like, um, the rainbow! yes! that has to be God! excellent".

That is, until the second group start explaining the rainbow too. (Isaac Newton, 1670). God does not control the rainbow. God has no place in it. It is simply the refraction of light.

So the first group say again"oh err okay well, so God doesn't do that exactly, but he must do..."


And so the process continues. The concept of God filled the vacuum of human understanding, and it is the purpose of science to replace 'God' with logic and mathematics. Today, people are asking "how was the Universe created"?

It is the first group of people that will immediately answer "God did, of course". But it is the second group of people that will end up providing an answer.

Which group are you?

I'm assuming that you are still referring to the leviathan. I did a quick search and could find no references in the Bible claiming that it could breath fire. (one, two). However, if you know the exact passage I would be interested in seeing it.

I think people fail to realize true religious tolerance with respect to beginnings of the universe would require not only teaching Evolution, the Big Bang, and Creationism, but also the creation teachings of other religions like Hinduism.

I, for one, am not interested in hearing a half-dozen other religious takes on the creation of the universe. If I want that, I'll take a religious studies course.

There is very good physical evidence for the Creationism, but it does not "prove" anything through science. In order to do that you must first assume that there is a physical, which we cannot prove. Sure we can sense the physical, but that in-and-of it self is part of the physical world. It's like defining a word and using the word in the definition. It doesn’t work. Same with logic. No-one can defeat the statement "Logic does not exist." Why? You have to use logic to prove it. We see that certain things work the way they work based on the assumption that they exist. But we can't prove they exist out side of already assuming they exist? See what I mean? Physical evidence doesn’t really prove anything.





You’re saying Creationism is wrong with out even arguing it. If you research it, you may find that Creationism makes a lot more sense that Evolutionism. Look at both sides of the issue. Many of the Evolutionary theories still thought in school have been disproved many times, yet they still print them. There are much smarter and much better educated people than you and I who debate on the subject. Evolution has anything but shown Creationism to be wrong.

You can’t really say that. If you study it out you may find that the Creationist theory is more accurate to our observation than others. Until you have studied it out, you’re just condemning it based on hear say. Many atheists will tell you that creationism is just denial of the facts based on some archaic religion, but they are making hasty generalizations. Evolution hasn’t overwhelmingly shown creation to be false. Study both sides issue at least some, before making a judgment like that on it.



When you look out the window in the morning and see the sun coming up you don’t say, “Ahh look! The sun earth has turned on vertical axis to the point where the sun is now visible from my position on the earth!” Scripture was written by men, and I believe through God. They wrote it down in normal language. Their point was not to write down explanations of all the world’s phenomena. They wrote like any normal human would. Those men didn’t necessarily understand the science behind every thing, but they write down every thing to a point that we know how it happened. Even if they did know the science behind it they would still say that sun rises. Don’t we? It’s just common terminology. I don’t see how them saying the sun is rising makes anything false at all. When we say the sun rises that’s our terminology for what happens in the morning. We just know the science behind it now. And I suppose if you really want to get picky you could say it actually does rise. All motion is relative isn’t it?

This is the group that would make the achievements. This is the group that would keep thinking. In fact, they'd keep thinking until 1514, when Copernicus explained the motion of the Earth, and 1618, when Kepler refined them mathematically.




What on earth could a physical explanation for something have to do with it’s meaning? We live in a physical universe. It has nothing to do with weather God causes it naturally or not. He made his universe in such a way the rainbows would occur. If you believe God created the universe, wouldn’t he just possibly have something to do with the way things work. Like creating them that way? Maybe God created this refraction of light in a physical way instead of a supernatural way. Why shouldn’t he? What difference would it make?

What? I don't remember anything about sea monsters, and I don't think the majority of people have ever believed the earth is flat (despite school-teacher myths). There was never evidence showing it as flat.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Can you show a verse?

Nope. That would be the Old Covenant. Prior to Jesus, the only way to God was to keep all the laws; basically to be perfect. The New Covenant is simply faith in Christ. (true faith, mind you)
I'd also like to point out (I think I may have told you before) that according to the gospel of Matthew, hell was not prepared for humans, nor is there any verse that says God sends you to hell. There is, however, a verse that says he will deny you if you deny him, implying that he will not look after your spirit. Not until Revelation does God deal out judgement. Mind you, there are actually two judgements: one based on faith (an automatic "free pass"), and (for those without faith) another based on works (your life style). During these judgements, people shall be raised even from hell. But I'm betting the standard is pretty high for the 2nd judgement. Maybe not.
(That's in Revelation 20, if you're interested. It's a relatively short chapter.)


If you take creation literally, yes. And I challenge you to find a verse that supports geocentrism. That was actually a doctrine held by the early Catholic church for a number of years. It's not in the Bible.
If I may quote Job 26:7 - "He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing."
Quite the contrary to earlier religions, which stated the earth was suspended from the sky with cords or strings, or held up by a god or godess.
And we know now the earth is in no way stationary, as it would have to be if it was supported by something.
By not being "hung" upon anything, it gives the earth freedom to move around the sun and through sapce.

Actually, I was talking to Obi. But basically, you have Christians claim that some event in their lives is proof of God's existence. However, if they explain the event to another, it's simply a story to the person hearing it. They didn't experience it, and the dynamic of the event doesn't apply to anyone else. Therefore, the event can only apply to that one particular individual. It exactly this type of thinking that falsely leads people to believe Christianity and science contradict. What you're basically saying here is that because we can explain how it happens, God didn't do it.
You find me a proven scientific theory that says God doesn't exist, or that God doesn't have a hand in anything. False dilemma. Don't try to start forcing people onto opposite sides of the room, because it's not going to work. Science is not the purpose of religion: It is not intended to explain how things happe, but for what significant purpose they happen. They do not even cover the same topic. Religion's intent is to explain the spiritual, whereas science's intent is to explain the physical.

But I don't believe God created the Universe.

The question arises, "How did the Universe start?"

You say "God did it".

I say "I don't know". I don't claim to know how the Universe began, and I'm not going to conjour up answers to make it look like I do.
But 500 years ago, people didn't know what caused the planets to move, so they said it was God. Then they found out it wasn't God. People today don't know what caused the Universe, so they say it is God. Perhaps in 500 years time, we will find out what it actually is. Quantum phyicists have recently discovered that the effect can sometimes occur before the cause. As technology advances, such theories can be refined and perfected. Discovering how the Universe began isn't impossible.


..As for your 'logic' malarkey...

'Logic' only exists within the human brain (and the brains of other animals), it is simply a thought process. You could say "Prove that dreams exists" and it'd achieve exactly the same.



This is the brain as seen from the right side. Look at the pretty colours.
This shows the lobes of the cerebral cortex. The blue bit is the cerebellum, and that is responsible for logic.


..As for 'Creationism'...



What "scientific evidence" do you have exactly that supports Creationism? I can't disprove you if you don't give me anything to disprove.
Well, I can try...

Claim
"The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life"

Response :
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways.
For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life.

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins which give biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) which might function to promote life.

This calculation also assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

It also ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.


Claim : Even the simplest, most primitive forms of life, bacteria, are incredibly complex, much too complex to have arisen by chance.

Response :
There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.

Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides. This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin whether or not you call the molecules "life".


Claim : "Microevolution (for example, the development of insecticide resistance) merely selects pre-existing variation. It doesn't demonstrate that mutations create new variation".

Response :
In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations which are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.

Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a huge variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides.

Mutation is the only natural process which adds variation to populations. Selection and genetic drift remove variation. If mutations didn't create new variation, there would now be little or no variation to select from. In particular, reducing populations to a single pair of individuals, as Noah's Flood requires, would have removed very nearly all variation from the world's wildlife in one stroke.

It is true that much microevolution selects from pre-existing variation. In animals, that kind of microevolution occurs much faster than waiting for certain mutations to occur, so we often see artificial selection programs stall when they have selected among all the variation that was there to begin with. However, if the selection is maintained, change should continue, albeit at a much slower rate.

Claim (I think Obi made this one in a previous thread) : DNA and chromosome counts differ widely between different organisms. This dissimilarity contradicts the similarity we expect from common descent. Either chromosome counts should be the same because the different forms of life descended from a common ancestor, or chromosome counts should be more complex as organisms get more complex. Neither is the case. For example, humans have 46 chromosomes, some ferns have 512, some gulls have 12.

Response :
Chromosome counts are poor indications of similarity; they can vary widely within a single genus or even a single species. The plant genus Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n=5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26. Chromosome counts in the house mouse species range from 2n=22 to 40 [Nachman et al. 1994].

Chromosomes can split or join with little effect on the genes themselves. One human chromosome, for example, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end-to-end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes (Yunis and Prakash 1982). Because the genes can still align, a change in chromosome number does not prevent reproduction. Chromosome counts can also change through polyploidy, where the entire genome is duplicated. Polyploidy, in fact, is a common mechanism of speciation in plants.

Claim : The Origin of Species does not deliver on the promise of its title; it does not address speciation.

Response :
Darwin explained at length how a species can change its form gradually but, over long periods of time, drastically. Even if new species did not branch off from such a lineage, many people would still consider that process an origin of new species.

Darwin proposed that natural selection had a fundamental role in speciation, but did not elaborate much on the mechanism. It is now believed that much speciation is due not to natural selection, but to geographical isolation and genetic drift (allopatric speciation). However, natural selection is still seen to play a role in other speciation, such as speciation due to specialization on different hosts, and natural selection drives incipient species to greater diversity.

Darwin wrote about speciation, including the role of geographic isolation, in other works


Claim : Evolution doesn't explain homosexuality. Traits evolve due to greater reproductive success, and homosexuals aren't big on reproduction.

Response :
Although homosexuality probably has a genetic component, much of its cause, perhaps most of it, appears to be non-genetic. To the extent it is not genetic, selection would not affect it.
Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait, but exists as a continuum. Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes. And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.

The most extreme heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did non-homophobic heterosexuals. Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propagated by causing latent homosexuals to behave heterosexually.

Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too. After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because, usually, they combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.

Genes for homosexuality could be spread through kin selection, if the homosexuals care for their siblings' offspring. However, this explanation is unlikely.


Claim : No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Response :
We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence.

As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution.

Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism.

There are many transitional forms which show that macroevolution has occurred.

Claim : "Humans and dinosaurs once lived together."

Response :
There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs, and there are no dinosaur fossils found with human fossils (except birds, which are descended from dinosaurs). (Out-of-place human traces such as the Paluxy footprints don't withstand examination.) Furthermore, there is an approximately 64-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places. At the very least, there should not be such a dramatic separation between them.

And anyway, if dinosaurs and humans were found together, it would not be a problem for evolution.

Phew.

Well, what claims do you have that I can disprove, Obi?



My argument is against those, such as Obi, that are putting science and religion, creationism and evolution, on the same level. Religion simply isn't true, it isn't factual, it isn't correct.

But whether it's useful or not, that is a completely different question.

Like I said, some people don't like feeling stupid. Using the concept of 'God' as an answer to things that they don't know, or don't understand, that might make them feel less stupid, and so more happy.
Religion may very well provide psychological benefits to some individuals, perhaps a sense of purpose or some such. But it is important to note that it is purpose for those individuals.
Events that occur in the Universe do not have purpose. They (more or less) obey the laws of cause and effect. They simply happen. They just occur. Like a billiard ball striking another, sending it flying off into another direction. There's no purpose there. There's no 'reason' for that to happen. It just happens.

I suppose some people might find that depressing. After all, you can apply this to everything, to the neurons that interact in your brain. There is no choice, there is no thought, there is simply the reactions that occur between chemicals.

But I am not convinced that religion is by any means necessary for people's happiness. It's just an easy way out. Religion is a psychological painkiller.

Here you go man: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/leviathan.html

Search results while trying to get a link seriously held me in amazement for 5 minutes. On the first 2 pages, I think pretty much all of the links where Christian. Some of them talked about how the Leviathan story proves man and dinosaur lived in the same age. Some of them claimed the story disproved evolution. Read the conlusion of this site for example: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml. Hmmmmmmm... ****ed up thinking is more common than I thought.



Excellent! Hit me up...



Sure it proves something. The notion of 'proof' is inherent to the word 'evidence'. You are in the posession of 'physical evidence', post it.

Also, the part about 'the physical' really shocks me. This is EXACTLY the same as saying I just can't explain to you why I'm right and you're wrong . Really man, again, if you have physical evidence of creation then post it, and stop pseudo-philosophizing about non-subjects. Same goes for the topic of logic you somehow bring back up, and which you're obviously not a fan of considering these posts.



Yep, creationism is wrong. You can quote me on that for future reference by the way.

You accuse me of not arguing my points, yet you say stuff like this: creationism makes a lot more sense than evolutionism and Many of the Evolutionary theories still thought in school have been disproved many times. The entire established scientific community backs me up on this. Where are your references man? Where are your credentials?

Again, you're the challenging party in this. Evolutionism is the established scientific theory. Let's see your creationism evidence, so I can try to debunk it. First, post why evolution theory is wrong. Next, post the evidence you speak of and show us the objectively verifiable data which proves creationism. If you can do that, and you say you can, you have everything to win man. You can literally shake the academic world upside down, make billions and change the way we view the world. All you have to do is post.



I already posted this above, but just to make sure, tell us how the Creationist theory is more accurate to our observation than others. I know both sides of the argument, now argue with me. Strange that you accuse me of not arguing my points.



You don't get it man. Mort-Hog tries to explain the difference between group A and group B. Group A doensn't want to get into the subject, and artificially fills the gap with 'god'. Group B can not live with this and tries to dig deeper. Historically speaking group B always provided the breakthroughs on subjects that were formerly attributed to 'the divine', historically speaking group A has opposed these findings. Post facts if this is not the case.



Bible excerpts on Leviathan: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/leviathan.html , which is a Christian site, but I can't find anything better for now.

On flat earth, geocentrism:

• Chronicles 16:30
  He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.
• Psalm 93:1
  Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
• Psalm 96:10
  He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...
• Psalm 104:5
  Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
• Isaiah 45:18
  ...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...
• Isaiah 40:22
  He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
• Revelation 7:1
  After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.
• Revelation 20:7-8
  When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle.

Posted above.



Sure, but the question still stands: how can we make that judgement? It's a task I'd rather not do, and I'd like to hear the criteria that'll get someone in hell and another person in heaven.



Check the list above, which shows some verses on geocentrism. I'm probably interpreting them wrong though :/



You mean like one kid telling to his mother how the movie he saw led him to believe there are monsters under his bed? Yep... the mother definitely will be very critical.

But maybe Obi could be more precise and tell his story. If he doesn't, the argument becomes invalid to this whole debate. (seriously, you could claim anything with this relative proof)



Exactly man. That's why I'm always so surprised by the ... religious zeal people attack evolution or any other established theory with. I mean, evolution does not DISPROVE any god. I don't think anyone actually ever claimed that.

When you say christianity I tend to include the stuff they claim(ed) about creationism, flat earth, geocentrism, dinosaurs, etc... If that's Christianity, then yes, it contradicts science. I take the Christianity term too broadly though, probably.

I think the real attitude towards our world should be one of amazement. Come on, we should not be afraid of stuff like evolution. Recognize that it's an AMAZING process, far more complex and beautiful than stupid creation theories, and think of how lucky we are, to be human, on an earth with a great potential for good things. That's what the real divinity is man... absorbing the beauty of it all, the cycles, the micro-and macrosystems, the sound of Bach, the sight of an attractive woman... imagine the odds, and be thankful for the little time and the small space we have gotten on this planet.

If that's what true Christianity is, well shoot me, then I'm Christian. But drop the Bible and the insane theories written in them. The existence of God does not need the Bible. Stop thinking you'll live forever, and enjoy our little time between point A and point B.... it's all we have.

Anyway, if you're gonna reply to this, reply to ALL of what I have written, I did my best to do the same for you. Most of the stuff written in my previous post has been left unreplied, and I think it should make for good conversation. Expect a reply back next weekend possibly.

Reply to EVERYTHING please, including what Mort-Hog has written plus what I wrote in my PREVIOUS reply. Thanks

It's not so much that "God didn't do it, therefor God doesn't exist", but rather "God didn't do it, so...God didn't do it".

God isn't necessary in any physical phenomena, apart from black holes and the big bang. These are phenomena that we don't understand, and so 'God' can fill that vacuum.

Once those phenomena are explained, then God will not be necessary for the Universe at all.

This will not conclude that God does not exist. It will rather conclude that if God exists, he's not doing anything, he's never done anything, he'll never do anything, and he doesn't occupy any physical space anywhere in the Universe (unless we discover a 'God' particle in some corner of the Universe).

But you cannot 'prove' that God does not exist. You cannot prove a negative claim.

wow. There are some huge-*** long posts in this thread. Anyway, I liked the comic, Mort-Hog. Really funny.

You're assuming that absence of perceivable evidence is evidence of absence. I can't see x-rays with the naked eye -- does that mean that they don't exist?

Ok these posts are getting way to long. I suppose one way to win an argument is to make a post so long the your opponent doesn’t have to do rebut the entire thing. I'll only talk about one because I don't really have time to research and rebut the rest of them. I also believe that argument this sort of cuts to the center of the matter. Like I say as much as I like to, I simply can't reply to three really long posts in a row. I simply don't have time.




Darwin’s theory of Evolution has been so tweaked as to be unrecognizable. Today evolutionists do with their science just what your cartoon accuses creationists of doing.

The problem with Darwin's original theory is that it assumed that micro-evolution (which is generally accepted by both sides) works the same way macroevolution does. Unfortunately this is not the case. While micro-evolution involves the changing of the properties of different alleles with in a species, Macroevolution requires alleles to be added or subtracted. Adding and subtracting alleles cannot be done through natural selection. In other words, a dog can evolve through microevolution (breeding and natural selection), into a bigger dog, but cannot evolve into a cat. The only way a creature can have different kinds of alleles is thorough a mutation. The hypothesis of Evolution is still going strong because they found a way around this. They now say that certain cataclysmic happenings have caused wide spread mutations and through natural selection the creatures that had mutations beneficial to them had survived to reproduce.

Now to me this sounds like the most weasely piece of rubbish ever. Why? A. We have never seen a mutation that is not harmful. B. Since mutations are basically unorganized randomizations of genetic code, two creatures of the with the same mutation probably wouldn’t exist, lets alone be close enough to reproduce. C. With A and B in mind, both of these occurrences would have had to happen countless times for the variety of creatures we see today to exist.

I certainly won’t claim to be an expert on the subject and there are probably much smarter evolutions than me who would explain away all this quite quickly, but that’s not the point. My point is the creation vs. evolution goes much deeper than a bunch of uneducated, archaic people clinging to a religion that has been conclusively proved wrong. This debate is still going strong among the most prominent evolutionists and creationists, and neither side has conclusively proved their side to be right.
You certainly can’t and won’t prove creation to be bogus as a side issue to a topic in a forum. The issue goes way deeper than any one of us will ever hope to understand. My point in this post is to show you that Christians aren’t bunch of uneducated, archaic people clinging to a religion that has been conclusively proved wrong. I know I haven’t convinced you to my position, but at least I hope maybe you will have a bit more respect for Christians in the future.

Except there's plenty of percievable evidence of x-rays.


But until the technology arose to be able to detect x-rays, for all intents and purposes, they didn't exist. Retrospect is easy, but at the time, how could you possibly claim that x-rays would exist?

Now, actually.. There is a grey area. Mathematical proofs can suggest that something exists, and I'm fairly certain that somebody did theorise about a continuous electromagnetic spectrum before they were actually discovered, but mathematical derivation alone is rarely grounds for a solid theory. More often than not, something is observed, and the mathematics are used to explain it (occassionally, the mathematics are derived first, and the observations are studied thereafter), but the mathematics alone don't really stand up. It was Röntgen that is heralded with the discovery of X-Rays (or Röntgen rays, as they're known in Europe). Throughout the early 20th century, there was a big boom in discovering the components of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But this isn't really relevant in terms of 'God'. There is no observation of 'God' and there is no mathematical derivation.
You can't say "well there might possibly perhaps be some sort of evidence, we just haven't found it yet. we just don't have the technology". That isn't an argument.
You could say that about absolutely anything. ever. Without observation, you have nothing. Without observation, in terms of science, it doesn't exist.

I make no apology for long posts. I have a lot to say. Just don't expect me to repeat myself (and I am quite aware that I have repeated myself in this post)

But I am most pleased that you're nearing something resembling an argument.

Now to disprove it..



Yes, Darwinnian theory has been built upon over time. That's how science works. They have made observations that Darwin didn't, or couldn't, and so the theory has to change in order to explain the observation. But the general principle of natural selection remains the same.



Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists such as Wallace deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, i.e. the formation of new species, new genera, etc. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category which they use the word "macroevolution" for. They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it hasn't been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as diruptive selection (natural selection which drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation which creates copies of the entire genome) may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes, over time, cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution of some kind to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.



Darwin himself talked about mutations too. Random mutations are the fundemental principle of natural selection.



Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans. Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations don't survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (No, these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations.
Other examples include:
- Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon
- Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones
- Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS
- . . . or to heart disease
- A mutation in humans makes bones strong
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity
- Mutation and selection in vitro can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules such as a ribozyme

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability

(Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the Young Earth Creationism model. So that's that one done.)




The objection falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly when one individual gives rise to an individual of another species. In fact, populations evolve, not individuals, and most speciation occurs gradually. In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations can't interbreed when they do get together.

It is also possible for speciation to occur without the geographical separation ("sympatric speciation"), but the process is still gradual.

Sometimes new species can form suddenly, but this occurs with species which are asexual or hermaphroditic and don't need to find mates.



Yes, and these processes have been going on for millions of years. What many people fail to realise is that these processes are going on simultaneously, so they won't take as long as some creationist calculations suggest.



The support for creationism is because of ignorance.
Yes, some of them can use long words, and do a bit of maths to make them look clever, but that doesn't make them any less wrong.
Evolution theory continues to be solidly proven, and creationism is being debunked in lots of new and imaginitive ways.



What exactly do you think I'm doing here? I've totally disproved every one of your arguments.



Nope.

Very interesting. Thank you.

I'm going to have to do more study on that, but for the most part, dragons, serpents, and snakes represent Satan (such as the dragon in Revelation, or the snake in the garden of eden). Give me time on that.


Does "fix" automatically mean to hold in place?
But I'll show in Hebrew (transliterations, of course).

(BTW, the KJV is not exactly the most accurate translation out there... by far)
First, let's look at the most critical word: eretz, a Hebrew word used *many* times in the Bible. Not only does it mean Earth, but it means land, whole earth (the whole planet), earth (as opposed to heaven), country, territory, district, region, tribal territory, piece of ground, land of Canaan (Israel), inhabitants of land or the earth, city (or state), earth's surface, soil, space or distance of a country (some measurement), land or plain country, land of the living, etc. It's a vague word, but bottom line, it references to the earth in some way, but not necessarily to the whole planet. So basically, the context of this word defines it. Now, let's look at specifics.

Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10
A better translation for immovable would be "that it not be moved." (Paraphrasing happens a lot in translating). The word "move" is actually the Hebrew word mote; it means to waiver, slip, shake, or fall. All three of these verses use mote.

Psalm 104:5
The word "foundation" is actually the Hebrew word makon; it specifically refers to the basis/foundation of God's sanctuary in Heaven. The question is what is meant by eretz. Context clues. We use the word earth in similar contexts in Enlish as well (although not nearly to the same extent).

First, I would hope you realize the second sentence here is being poetic. Note the use of "like."
Second, the Hebrew word (chuwg or khoog) does mean circle. However, it can also mean circuit or compass.
Interestingly, the Hebrew word for ball (the nearest word available for sphere in Hebrew) is also used to describe the encircling of an army. It's secondary meaning also means circle. But do we understand how the Hebrews interpreted or understood the word?
If nothing else, if you were to look at the earth from only one perspective, what would it look like?

"Four corners of the earth" is still an expression used today. It's a reference (even today) to the four cardinal directions: North, South, East, and West, and sometimes to the four hemispheres.

In Hebrew (this phrase appears in the Old Testament, so I'll go ahead and mention it here, too), the word is kanaph which can be translated a number of ways. Most commonly, it means "extremity." It gets translated as "border" (in reference to a country's borders, such as in Numbers 15:38), and "four corners" in Isaiah 11:12, and "ends" in Job 37:3 and 38:13.
As for the New Testament, it's in Greek. In the verses you've quoted, the Greek word for "four corners" is gonia, which literally means angles or divisions. It is often used in reference to quadrants. Quad=4, and there are four hemispheres, yes?

I rarely lie on interpretation anymore, since I've discovered the majority of the problem lies in translation.
English = teh suck.

Simple: We don't. We aren't qualified to judge. John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
And the next part many Christians miss:
John 3:17 - "For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him."
I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but that's the simplest answer I can give.

No. If you could claim anything with it, it would be absolute proof. I'm simply saying that what serves a proof to one person may not be proof to another, and I already gave an example why.

Reminds of the verse that all creation testifies to the glory of God. You seem to have a better understanding of that than most Christians; they try to use it as "proof" for creation, when that's not even what it means.

You're still comitting the same fallacy. Just because we can explain something with science doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it.
That really made no sense whatsoever. God is an explanation for the universe? I'm certainly glad my religion doesn't hinge on that notion.
1 John 4:8, 4:16 - "...God is Love..."


Really, Mort?
Well, I shall return the favor... by not responding to any more of your posts in this thread.

I don't feel like reading everything again to find the specific posts, but to answer previous points:

Creationism has no physical proof. This so called "proof" creationists claim to have have no logical or scientific basis.

Example: I think the sky is blue because a god in the form of a giant green duck with three heads has made it so.

Proof: The sky is indeed blue, therefore my theory is true.


The other common argument is the one obi stated earlier about evolutionism supposedly being proven false. It was "proven" false by creationists. When in fact, it has been proven true by countless scientific facts.

Before I respond, answer me this. Is this topic about reality or evoloution? I'd be glad to switch to evoloution, but let me know if we've switched to that, as it looks like we have.

Welcome to two pages ago.

To my understanding, evolutionists are in no position to tell creationists that what they believe is wrong, without being hipocrytes. Sure, the whole God thing might not make sense because no one knows where he came from, but this same theory applies to evolution. If we supposedly evolved from tiny little particles of stuff... where did the tiny particles come from?

You can't make something out of nothing, and thats a scientific fact.


So really, I think the arguement is pointless. But I would like to know why Christianity is apparently so dangerous....

That isn't strictly true.

As velocity nears the speed of light, the mass of the body increases.

The Universe conserves energy (and charge), but not matter. Energy can change from particle form to wave form and vice versa.



Evolutionists never ever claim that things "come from nothing". If anything, various Creationists make that claim.

Your argument lies not so much in 'evolution', but a more fundemental, yet considerably less interesting, problem in science, the big bang. A finite amount of energy condensed into an infinitely small area. But that doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.
Unless I've misunderstood, and you may have to narrow what exactly you're talking about.



I think both of us have been debating evolution for several posts now...



But where is the evidence of God?
We can explain all these phenomena without 'God', so what exactly is the point of adding 'God' into the equation? We don't need 'God'.

Again, you seem to following the "There might be some evidence here but we just haven't seen it yet" line of thought, which really doesn't make any sense.
You seem to be forming a conclusion, and then hoping that eventually there'll be some observation to back it up.

Where did god come from?

Besides, as mort put it, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Correction: you feel you don't need God. It strikes me odd that you treat the non-existence of God as fact, while mandating that anyone who believes in God maintain that what they believe can not be fact.

Makes sense to me. Religion is based on faith. If it were based on evidence, it wouldn't be a religion to begin with. Since it has no evidence or logical reasoning, it can't be considered a fact.

Oh excellent, I was waiting for the "well that's just your opinion" comment.

I didn't say that I don't need God. I'm saying the Universe doesn't need God.

I argue that the non-existance of God is fact because there is simply no evidence for God. The arguments for God, as I've said before, always run the line "There might be God, we just haven't observed Him yet".

I could say "I believe a giant purple walrus with an ingrowing toenail twice the size of Pluto is in orbit around a distant star". This claim makes just as much sense as 'God' does.
Now, you cannot disprove my claim, therefor it must be true! I don't have to provide any evidence to support my giant purple walrus claim, because you can't prove the giant purple walrus doesn't exist! Therefor, the giant purple walrus exists. Some time in the future, we might be able to prove or disprove whether the giant purple walrus does exist, so I'll continue to believe it does exist until there's evidence to suggest it doesn't!

See.

All you're doing is replacing 'giant purple walrus' with 'God'. The words are different, but the logic, or rather lack of it, is the same.

You cannot make a claim, and then wait for the observation to follow.

You make the observation, and then try and work out answers to explain it. Not the other way round.

I haven't read all of this thread, though i have read ~3/4 of it, and i'd jsut like to suggest to those of you who talk about how physical laws explain everything, expecially the creation of life, i suggest you read Manifold: Origin by Stephen Baxter. The univerise has these phsyical laws, these exact physical laws that allowed life to exist, and it didn't need to happen. A universe's laws are not absolute, anoutehr universe can have ones totally different, and entirely inimical to life.

there is no particular reason that, somewhere in the multiverse, these exact physical laws had to come into being which allowed life. jsut a smidgen different and we couldn't exist. If the gravity constant was, intead of 6.67 x 10^-11 was, say, 6.67, gravity would be so strong the big bang would never have happened. If it was only, say, 6.67 x 10^-6, stars may have formed, but they would have been extreamly heavy and wouldn't have released the elements which allowed the creation of life, and planets may not have been able to form, they would grow too dense and form either more stars or black holes. or what if it was 6.67 x 10^-13? stars may never have formed, there not being enough attraction, and then nothing would have happened at all, just a universe filled with wisps of gaseous matter, and occationally maybe a comet-type dust ball if you're lucky.

Or, say, the nuclear forces were different? or what if energy wasn't conserved? what if the speed of light was different? or... i think you see where i'm going. This universe, with is specific laws, just happened to come into being, and the correct series of events just happened to lead to our creation on this insignificant little speck of a planet. It didn't have to happen, but it did. considering even that, and the absolutely immence variables and probabilities necessary to bring about our existance, don't you think it's just a smidgen irrational to believe it all happened through blind luck?

Not at all. Just look at the size of the universe. Thousands of millions of known stars, thousands of millions of known planets, and how many have conditions that allow life? One. Just one. It's like playing the lottery. If you buy one ticket, your chances of winning are so small it's not even worth mentioning. On the other hand, if you buy a few million tickets each with different combinations, there's a very very big chance you'll win, possibly more than once.

If every planet we know of was exactly like earth and had intelligent life, then what you say would make sense.

I wonder if you have read "The Hidden Bible" by Richard Friedman, who asserts that the first whatever books of the Bible are based on the writings of one person. A quick summary: basically, from Genesis 2 to end of 2 Samuel, there is a consistent style of writing and themes etc. that suggests that this all used to be based on one person's work. Depending on who you are, this original work would have been the first copious history book or the first great novel. Or both.

Anyway, to avoid sounding way out of date, I might as well comment on the purple walrus:

Mort-Hog, your statment about a giant purple walrus with an ingrown toenail etc. has a few problems. We know what a walrus is. We know that it cannot live without food, water, and oxygen, among other things. We know that it needs the protections afforded by the Earth to avoid death from nasty stuff in space, such as intense radiation from the star. We know that space does not have food or adequate amounts of water and oxygen. We know that empty outer space will not protect the walrus from the radiation from the star. We know several other things too that would conflict with your statement. Thus, I can claim to have disproven your statement. Whether or not you accept my disproving is another matter.

[EDIT:] I have to ask whether "multiverse" is an appropriate term that can be used at all. Doesn't the universe contain everything inside it by virtue of its definition?

Ah, the Anthropic Principle.

There are some complicated ways to answer this, mathematically... but I'll try an easy one...

If anything, this argument suggests that there are other Universes. You yourself referred to the multiverse.
The gravitational constant is indeed 6.67 * 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. How small is the 'window' for which life is permitted? Let's say it's... 1.0 * 10^-20 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2.
This means that there is a 1.49 * 10^-10 % probability of life in any one given Universe. Indeed, that's tiny.

Now, let's say in the multiverse, there are two Universes. The probability of life existing in one of those Universes is 2.98 * 10^-10%. That's slightly less small.
Let's say there's fifteen Universes in our multiverse. That's 7.35 * 10^-9 percent chance of life. That's a lot bigger. You see, the more Universes in our multiverse, the more chance we get one that's capable of supporting life. Simple statistics, isn't it?

So, the more Universes, the bigger the probability... We don't have fifteen, we don't have fifteen hundred, we have an infinite number of Universes in our multiverse.
If the number of Universes is infinite, then the probability of life is 1. That's 100% chance of finding a Universe capable of supporting life.


So, the fact that there's such a small window of 'life', perhaps it suggests an infinite number of Universes.


Of course, to be somewhat more blunt, and less interesting, you could just point out that we've never, and will never, observe any other Universe than our own, so we cannot speculate about anything outside of our Universe. You cannot say that it was 'unlikely' that our Universe could support life, because you live in one that does. You say "if the physical constants were slightly different, life wouldn't occur", but they're not slightly different, and why would they be slightly different? How much experience do you have of any Universe other than our own? How many Universes do you know that don't support life?

Another point is that the Universe is not necessarily "fine-tuned" for human beings. All forms of carbon life can exist happily in this Universe. Perhaps 'The Creator' fine-tuned these values to make the Universe perfect for dinosaurs, and human beings were an unimportant byproduct? Of course, dinosaurs are extinct, but you do think human beings will exist forever? Or perhaps the intended creation was insects, the most successful of all lifeforms. There's trillions of them, compared to only a few billion humans. Say, there's lots of rocks about, too. Perhaps the Universe was fine-tuned so make it perfect for rocks.


This is a fairly interesting topic, as there are three main types of the Anthropic Principle, each which can be debated quite thoroughly on its own. But if you want to discuss this further, I'd really advise starting a new thread. Now I'm all for thread hijacking if the original thread topic is boring, but we have a fairly interesting discussion going on here already, and introducing the Anthropic Principle debate into this would confuse the two debates. If you're going to reply to this, start a new thread. Feel free to copy paste this into a new thread, if you want.



Ah, but this is a special walrus, it doesn't need any of those things! I forgot to mention that it's a magic giant purple walrus. with an ingrowing toenail.

Ok, Mort, i'll not continue on that in here. i knew someone would probably bring up the fact that we can't technically know how many other universes there are, but you can't blame a guy for trying

[Edit: Just one thing: i was actually refering to the creation of life in general, but reading my post again i see i did refer to 'our creation'. And flexor, i was speaking on the terms of the multiverse, not our planet. The universe itself is infinite, or so close as to make no diference (probably), and so, as Mort explained, though for a slightly different reason, its almost garunteed that life had to occure somewhere.]

Actually, you can't make a conclusion and wait for observation to follow. Big difference. Generally, if you remove something from an equation, the equation fails. If you add something to an equation, it fails.
Of course, you can't literally add or remove God from the equation to begin with, right?

And aren't you Muslim? Or am I thinking of someone else.

No, athough its possible we are the only universe, many reputable theories such as String Theory and Quantum Mechanics either require or explain the existance of other universes. Universe is a rather deceptice word, what with the prefix 'Uni' and all. however, it is not necessary that we are the only universe. I'm goinng rahter farther then i quite know, so i may be a bit wrong on this, so anyone feel free to correct me. however, the thing is, we live in one universe, this infinit space, hwoever, outside it (yes, you cant be ouside infinity, jsut go with it, please?) there may be others, ugh, its incredibly hard to explain, our minds can't quite grasp the concept correctly without descibing the unverse wrong.

Well, why not, i'll use metaphors. say the univserse is inside a balloon. an almost infinit ballon, lets say, to make this easier. Now, right next to it, there's anoutehr infinite ballon. and next to that, another and next to that another, etc, etc, etc. This is the multiverse, the whole of these universes put together is the multiverse. Our universe is (according to 'theories', however, always keep that in mind) not the only one, probably, despite is probable infinitness.

"But, Lut-Ze, that's not how it works at all!"
"No, but it's a very useful lie"

That is all.

If that's your opinion, fine. However, I would have the respect to either:

a) Agree to disagree

or

b) Not tell you that "you're wrong," that your beliefs "aren't true."

Most people (myself included) take offense to being told that their system of beliefs are not true. I don't take offense to people believing that my system of beliefs are not true; to each his own, different strokes for different folks, etc.

I'm not asking you to stop posting. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe as you do. I'm asking that you act with a little tact, and when you say, "Religion isn't true," put an "I believe" in front of it, and I'll do the same when I say, "My religion is true."

Actually, the probability of a universe supporting life is exactly 1. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

It's like saying that the chance of each person being born is so infinitely small; what are the chances that my parents just happened to meet and have me? There are about 3 million people in my city... each of them had 1.5 million other people to choose from! The point is, if they hadn't met, I wouldn't be having this discussion, some other kid born of one of them would be.