Listen, not one step in the evolution of chemicals to a first cell is scientifically possible. All Atheist and Theist emotion aside, facts are the facts; Proteins cell membranes, DNA, RNA, or information will form in nature except in already living cells. ( Notice how this is being ignored here). If one part could have formed, it would have broken down while it was waiting for the others. All would have to have come about at almost the exact same time and location and immediately teamed up to form life. Now let one of the Atheist stat keepers and cite pimps offer me a cite that proves these proteins did that on their own. What are the odds of such a thing?
When a cell has made a new protein, while its still moving into place, it folds into exact shape which will allow it to connect with the proteins next to it. To make proteins, Ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a perfect fit. They fold into a highly complex three dimensional shape that then determines their function; stunning incredible proof and evidence of God!
Are you a scientist? I mean, it seems to me that scientists disagree with you, and unlike you they understand what a theory is and what evolutionary theory says and the state of our actual understanding of the universe. Maybe you’re just a better scientist than they are, but is it just faintly possible that maybe you don’t know something?
I know what Theory is, its Conjecture; an explination of what you think; you cannot define theory as if it is fact. And that is a favorite pass time of some Atheist, dealing with theory as if it is fact.
If what you claim is accurate, then all you have is proof that it happened, not proof that your god did it. It’s the same thing as claiming that because 3+5 doesn’t equal 7, you have proven that it does equal 10.
Even if your premise is true- none of that ‘proves’ the existence of a supernatural being called ‘God’ - to turn it back to you - it would be your ‘theory’ that a God caused this (or ‘Creator’ if you will) - now - the onus is on you - PROVE with OBJECTIVE evidence that a GOD or GODS exist.
hint - you cant just say taht ‘x proves y’ - you have to do the work.
And you need to prove or cite evidence for the very first statement in your response -
Simster, its right there in front of your eyes, think man, put your Atheism to the side and THINK! Not one of the main ingredients of cells, Proteins, Membranes, RNA, DNA can form by themselves in nature; they got created! Its academic. This IS objective evidence, good grief! Where did the information in cells come from? From chemicals? From matter or rocks? What is information? Its knowledge RECEIVED or communicated FROM SOMETHINGELSE! Come on man, information is NOT matter, though it is imprinted on matter. This is proof of God right here, your just not absorbing it as proof.
But see your not supposed to; God made Atheist to be Atheist and to think like Atheist, which is why, in my personal view, Atheist are proof of God as well.
I would venture that the lion’s share of atheists you have encountered have not done that, because most atheists consider debate on the subject a waste of time better spent doing useful or fun things. The atheists you have engaged in debate are a small minority of all atheists.
Nothing is a pretty interesting and difficult subject. It does not exist because, being nothing, it cannot. Nothingness, on the other hand, could quite easily have given rise to stuff and, based on what we know of basic physics and quantum mechanics, it absolutely would have. Nothingness would be an unstable homogeneity that by its nature would have become something, everything is here because it had to be. A deity is superfluous and irrelevant.
Okay I’ll go at it this way, the term theory has evolved just as this big bang has evolved and scientist seek the favor of that evolution. The meanings have changed over the years, the definitions have changed. In example, I have a 45 year old dictionary, the " Living Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary", on page 853, the definition of " Theory" is as follows;
A systematic arrangement of facts with respect to some real or hypothetical laws; a hypothetical explanation of phenomena; a hypothesis not yet empirically verified as law but accepted as the basis of experimentation."
Now, notice how this definition has evolved in the favor of scientist, by using and comparing it with the definition Marely23 listed; its like observing the evolution of an evolutionist, something Alfred Russell Wallace said himself.
I totally disagree, and the archives of City-data.com and religiousforums.com would bear out those debates; I was eventually banned for banging too hard in these debates, but that was years ago, I have mellowed since, but I still am destined to be banned from this kind of debate, because I become too much of a threat.
It’s not that the word has only one definition that has changed over the years-it’s that the word has different definitions depending and how and by whom it is used. When scientists use the word, they use the definition referred to by Marley23(correct spelling).