Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Bible and Religion

i don't know any scientist who claims to disprove god. dawkins himself leaves room for doubt. any scientist of any sort of formidable reputation will not claim to disprove god. my personal stance is that there has been no clear evidence that there is a reason for a god of any type to exist. everything, up to our current limits, can be (or has the potential to be) explained by our scientific endeavors.
and, why is history on the side of creationism? there is no clear evidence to support that claim whatsoever. if you decide to refute evolution, then i will not both reposting because that, i suspect, will be a null effort.

I love this lecture by a christian biologist on intelligent design
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

So in not "knowing" leaves you to believe their could be a God. It takes as much faith to believe our ancestors were a form of mucus. It leaves open both ideas for our creation.
You use the word "potential" it shows the very probability both in religion and in science.
I definitely agree that species evolve.

It doesn't take just as much faith to believe in mucous or whatever the Evolution-suggested origin was, because there is actual evidence/reason/theory to that effect. The same cannot be said about God, which *must* be taken on faith alone.

yes, i leave room to reform my hypothesis, as any scientific hypothesis does (or should). after new data is received that counters your data/theory, then you must reformulate to account for the new data. until then, my hypothesis remains. i should also say that nothing is ever proven in science, we can only fail to disprove (not the same thing). until i see evidence/data that signifies that my idea of atheism is disproved, then as of now, it has failed to have been disproved.
that goes to say it does not take faith by any means to believe that we evolved from 'mucus' as you say (i take it you meant prokaryotes and archaebacteria) because that has failed to have been disproved. molecular and dna evidence paint a clear picture of how life began as 'simple' organisms and crawled to the complexity of the many species we have today.

What fire created your "simple" organisms? They just appeared one day? Living organisms from non-living matter? Interesting.
GM Necromancy?
EDIT: Totally believable that something omni created the first living organism(s), which evolved into what we are today. I just doubt it was from a mere miracle err.. happening.

convergence and the principles of physics guiding molecules to arrange in such a form that they lower their free energy, giving rise to membranes and cellular function.

So this process has been recreated?

we can make simple membranes by putting molecules into a dish of water, yes.
simple example of a bilayer membrane forming:
carbon and hydrogen produce long chains of hydrocarbons. the hydrocarbons can align themselves in a row, or sheet, to minimize the contact between water molecules (polar) and the hydrocarbons (nonpolar). the system will minimize the free energy further by placing polar 'head groups' on top of the hydrocarbons, further minimizing the contact between polar and nonpolar molecules. wa-la, you have a simple membrane.
have we given this process a few hundred million years in the lab to figure out its best form to lower its free energy? no.
the rules of electrostatics and entropy governs almost every single process in a cellular based system.

Exactly! You agree that it would take 4 billion years to test out this theory. It is not testable. Evolving is a process, creation of the first single cell organism isn't even a theory. Theories can be tested. This cannot.
Is the idea of hyperspace and worm holes theories? No they cannot be tested. They are just great ideas.
Even William Gough said that it would take an "extraordinary" event to turn non-living matter into living matter. Or "Discussions of the origin of life usually assume that there is a specific event, however improbable, by which dead matter became a living entity." Bruce Weber a Professor of Biochemist
Look I am not claiming to be a scientist, and neither should you unless you are. We cannot begin to understand all, nor pretend to. That is why I pay people to do my tax. I am not a scientist, nor a CPA. It would be impossible for me to understand the complexity of the 6,000 pages and 500 million words of our tax code; as well as the biology and the physics behind this science at their level, or just take a lifetime to achieve it.
I openly admit that I am uncertain that there is an afterlife, and creator. I am driven by indisputably historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ walked the earth, while disputably he was the savior of mankind. Yet you cannot comprehend nor understand the science behind the idea of non-living matter to living matter? I could find ample scientists that regard the transition from non-living matter to a living entity extraordinary. To believe this transition is a leap of faith; an unprovable, untested theory.