Dear JP,

I am quite aware that the Miller experiment does not show how life spontaneously arose. As I wrote it is only part of the puzzle.

Every primitive people apparently has some creation story. The Aborigines tell of the Rainbow Serpent. The Koran has God creating human out of mud. The Japanese have the sun goddess creating humans. The Bible has a bonus. There are two creation stories. One has Eve created out of Adam's rib (KJV Genesis 2:21-2:22) the other has the the two humans created at the same time (KJV Genesis 1:27). It seems obvious that the two myths were just two different creation stories patched together. We have a good idea where the rib story came from since the ancient Sumerian clay tablets which predate the Bible have been translated. The word for rib and 'mother of all living' are the same in that language.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm tells of the Sumerian creation myth.

Primitive people made up stories to tell how life came about. There is no more reason to believe one then the other. There is no more reason to believe the creation stories in the Bible than in any other creation stories.

This is another trick of Bible bashers. They set up straw men and deny claims that aren't made. No scientist claims that the Miller experiment describes the origin of life. As I wrote it is only part of the puzzle, and we may never solve it as we can't be certain of the conditions on earth at the time.

I have no reason to think that God and creation legends are any more than human inventions. We cannot at this time explain how life originated and may never be able to explain it. However, that is no reason to believe that creation stories whether found in the Bible or elsewhere are anything but products of the human imagination.

'There is no atheist miracle ' no Davidf just fantasy that order came from chaos. I am sure a 2 year old could see through such nonsense.

Dear JP,

Please listen to George. He believes in God but does not need to deny scientific discoveries to hold that belief. One does not need to believe that the Bible is literally true or even to consider it sacred literature to believe in God. Muslims believe in God but have a sacred book different from the Bible. Jews believe in God but do not consider the New Testament as part of the Bible. One can believe in God without believing in the Bible.

There are different kinds of belief in God.

Henotheism, worship of a single god despite recognition of other deities.

Monotheism, belief in a single deity. (Some would contend that Christianity with a belief in a Trinity and the divinity of Jesus is not a monotheistic religion.)

Panentheism, belief in a deity that subsumes and transcends the universe.

Pantheism, belief in a deity that is considered synonymous with the universe.

Polytheism, belief in multiple deities.

I do not believe in God, but I can prove neither that he doesn't exist nor that any of the above forms of belief are false.

Dear runner,

I doubt that there are many two year olds who could understand how evolution works. However, scientists and intelligent people in general do. Acceptance of evolution does not conflict with a belief in God. If there is a God who can know how he chooses to do things? Evolution may simply be the way in which God has chosen to create the diversity of life on our planet. Evolution conflicts with a literal acceptance of the Bible. However, there are conflicts within the Bible itself.

In a previous post I pointed out that one Bible creation story has Eve created out of Adam's rib (KJV Genesis 2:21-2:22), and another Bible creation story has man and woman created at the same time (KJV Genesis 1:27). This example shows we cannot accept a literal belief in the Bible. The Bible was written by humans who may or may not have been inspired by God.

JP/Graham,

You are still not understanding that atheism is not similar to a being in a religious group. You say you understand this, but your subsequent comments show this is not true. There is no "atheistic universe" and there are no "universal values" even within specific religious groups. I know this is hard to understand, that is why people have created myths, magic and gods to try and provide answers to the unknown.

Unless you have spoken with your god directly, who provided you with a comprehensive list of values and rules, then you either are interpreting meaning from an ancient man-written book (with each individual interpreting differently) or are being told what an interpretation is by a fellow human. Therefore acting as though your "chosen" values are more superior or meaningful than another individuals "chosen" values is a hypocritical. You are being told what is right and wrong by another human. This is worse than deciding for yourself.

You would have slightly more credibility if your religious values were shared exactly between all members of our religious group, and if these values had remained consistent over time. However, they have changed, and changed rapidly, to try and maintain relevance within our society. This is important to understand, that religion has to change to keep up with society, not the other way around. You say that people within your religion share common values, however followers of your faith include murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. You say these people are "wrong" but as fellow followers of your god, how do you know this for sure? Yes, the same way as people outside your faith do.

You add "If atheism is true" to your list of absurd questions. This really should be phrased "If I am wrong about my faith in the existence of this specific deity". I will provide you with the proof that your specific deity does not exist, right after you have provided the same proof regarding every other myth and deity that you don't believe in. Atheists are just like you, we just believe in one less god.

Dear Stezza,

<<This is important to understand, that religion has to change to keep up with society, not the other way around.>>

Neither should.

I am watching this futile, endless, argument.
What are they expecting to achieve?
Is someone going to willingly change their way of life and their core values because of the other?
Or is someone going to cave in and be miserable for the rest of their life because the other has the guns?

People should be able to live the way the want.

The problem is this monolithic mega-society, called 'state', which forces itself and the values of (in the best case) its majority on all others. Had societies been smaller, then it would be easier for people to live in societies that suit, or at least are compatible with their values.

There are no objective values (or morals) - because values cannot be found in the objective world, in nature: no scientist ever found a "value particle" (or "value wave" or "value energy"). I am pretty sure that nobody ever will.

So why this silly argument?
Let everyone go their way in peace. Let societies be voluntary (and therefore probably smaller) so that nobody forces people with incompatible values to live together in a single society. Let human population be curtailed so that it becomes more feasible to keep societies small and voluntary.