Runner,

It’s ludicrous cry "conspiracy", when you believe that evolution is one big conspiracy.

The practice I mentioned, that is now known as "Star Bombing", is no conspiracy theory and YouTube are aware of it. Nice try though.

I could give you literally hundreds of examples of the dishonesty of Creationism if you’d like. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that my argument rests on that one claim. Simply google: creationist+quote+mining for a few hundred examples.

As for where matter comes from, no one's sure. But your belief that it must've been God is simply a Creationist 'God of the Gaps' argument from incredulity. You're making the same assumption that primative people made when they believed that lightning and plagues must've come from God, or that God must be pushing the sun. The LEP Collider that was recently completed (you know, the Hicks Photon 'n' all (sorry Poly, couldn't resist)), is expected to shed some light on the origins of the universe over the next 15 years or so.

Just because we can’t answer some questions with absolute certainty yet, it doesn’t mean we won’t be able to in the future. 4000 years ago, the authors of Genesis would never have dreamed that we’d have the answers we now have about life and the universe.

If you want to view the existence of matter as proof of God, then fine. But I do get annoyed with your continual false accusations of dishonesty; claims that evolution is apparently "hopelessly flawed" (when you know nothing about it); and misrepresentations of the beliefs of others.

You can only be corrected by others; and fail to comply to the requests of others - to back your claims with something - so many times before your repetative claims can be regarded dishonest - either that, or stupidity.

<<I choose faith in the Creator because design is obvious.>>

You keep saying design is obvious, yet you never state why. What then would you have to say in response to my comment earlier on design? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2301#50380)

Poly,

Thank you for reading the articles I linked to. That would have to be a first (for any Creationist here). I'm impressed!

<<if they can do that in a year..why haven't they?>>

I'm not sure why. We may not have the technology to effectively replicate the primordial Earth scenario. But various stages of abiogenesis have been repeated in labs.

<<...it strikes me as absurdly unbelievable that such things could occur in the close proximity such that they can become more complex organisms.>>

Forgetting that this is an 'argument from incredulity'... Remember that sexual reproduction took millions of years to evolve, but did eventually evolve since sexual reproduction is extremely adventageous because of the resilience gained by mixing genes. And yes, scientists have a pretty good idea of how sex evolved (based on empirical evidence), but I don't have the space to explain it here.

<<There are so many "likely to be" "assumed"... "might just"'s in that discussion...>>

Of course there are. The study of abiogenesis is still in it's infancy. Which brings me to this...

<<...with that degree of uncertainty ... what is at work in the minds of those who with so little information are prepared to make a solemn declaration "God did not do it" :) ?>>

Science doesn't aim to disprove God. Science is the study of the natural world/universe, and hence the supernatural, by default, cannot come into the picture - whether or not God exists.

If God did create the universe and kick-started the process of evolution, then scientists will never find a certain answer to abiogenesis. But it's still early days and it would be foolish for us not to investigate it and assume that God must've done it.

However, disproving abiogenesis won't disprove evolution, as evolution is one of the most solid scientific theories and is backed by mountains of evidence.

But hey, if you want to believe that God kick-started the whole process, then go for it. My only beef here is with the pseudo-scientists who deliberately spread misinformation, and the Creationists who raise their children to be ignorant.

Gee Poly, a bible quote. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

And you've got it mixed up again.
Scientists do ask the question about probabilities. But they aren't stupid or dishonest enough to say that KNOW the answers. Only the 'intelligent design' crowd are silly enough to try and put numbers to the question and say they know the answer. You seem very impressed by (erroneous) hard numbers plucked from only God knows where.

Of course Science doesn't KNOW, but it does have some hypotheses and is asking the questions needed to find out and have a better idea. Which is exactly what doesn't happen when you think you already know what the answer is.

Which leads me to believe that what you really want is certainty and firm statements to guide you in your life. You cannot live with doubt. You would definitely not make a good scientist.

There's a good many Christians that have figured out that these kind of arguments of pointing at uncertainties and inadequate explanations and saying that "God must have done this", only diminishes the status of God in society when the explanations are eventually discovered. You make the existence of God contingent on the uncertainty. I'd listen to them and give it up if I were you, before you render your faith irrelevant.

Ok Boaz / Polycarp I will bite: -)

You said “I showed in an earlier post that the probability of a complex (even the most simple) life form coming to be is like TRILLION TRILLION TRILLIONs to 1”

I am guessing that ‘showed’ means you proved.

My question is how can you prove anything?
Spirituality is a personal choice not a universal fact. You can’t even use science to prove anything either. Using Pericles example, our advanced avionics to build a 747 and the A380 is based on the Wright brothers “bird gliders theory”. The very same advanced computers that will tell you its impossible for a bee to fly.

Not to lose the point, we are at the knowledge kindergarten and yet to be hit by waves of science and knowledge which, on one hand, turn the impossible into possible and on the other hand, discredit previous versions as the exclusive set of boundaries. So how can you ‘prove’ anything?

Peace,

I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a different experiment

- Take a number of fundies (religious or otherwise)
- Give them with an ancient text which they consider to be perfect
- Give them with a set of cherished beliefs with a loose correlation to the ancient texts, sometime contradictory to the texts and to each other
- Provide access to the results of a large number of methodically observations of the real world, controlled experiments etc.

Now whats the probability of a fundy drawing a valid conclusion which they understand contradicts their cherished beliefs?

R0bert

Pick me pick me pick me...

>>Now whats the probability of a fundy drawing a valid conclusion which they understand contradicts their cherished beliefs?<<

I know the answer teacher, pick me go on pick me ple-e-e-e-ease...