If there was no sun, there would be no life. It’s amazing how it evolved to where it is now. Sitting there in the sky, 93 million miles away from us. If it was a little closer, we would all die. If it was further away, we would all die; along with everything else. How did it evolve to position itself in just the right place? It's amazing.
If there was no oxygen, there would be no life. It’s amazing how the mix of air was able to get to the right consistency, with the right percentage of oxygen, all by itself. I wonder what percentage it was at the beginning. If the mix wasn’t right, life couldn’t have evolved. It’s amazing. Also, if there was no water on this planet, all life would die. But there it was, in the beginning. Sitting there. I wonder how much water there was at the genesis of it all, and how it mixed itself to the right consistency to support life. Also, I wonder why it bothered to do that, if life hadn’t yet evolved.
It’s amazing how everything evolved, from nothing. Think about it. If there was no gravity on this earth to hold the water down, there would be no life at all on this earth. Not even a camel. All water would have spun into space. I wonder what air pressure was like in the beginning. Was it 14.7 pounds per square inch, consistently all over the earth? It's amazing how gravity was able to evolve, all by itself.
Then there’s the wonder of the human eye. I wonder which eye evolved first. I guess they evolved together. With lids and tears of course. I wonder why eyes evolved, and which came first--the brain or the eye? I guess they both came together, because one couldn’t evolve without the other. It’s the brain that sees what the eye sees. And don’t forget the skull to hold them. That had to evolve. Eyes need sockets, and brains need a housing. Evolution is just amazing. What's really amazing . . . is that people believe it. Just amazing.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Amazing Evolution
117 comments:
I think someone should actually study evolution then they wouldn't beasking all these questions.
What about ears, how did ears know there was sound to hear when they decided to evolve, and how did they know the exact range of frequencies they would need to hear? I guess they just got lucky. Amazing.
"I wonder what gravity was like in the beginning. Was it 14.7 pounds per square inch, consistently all over the earth?"
There was no earth in the beginning...if you are talking about the beginning of time. You are better off reading Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time than Genesis on this matter.
Ray, congragulations, my friend! You have in the space of just one blog entry cataloged just about every single misconception that creationists have concerning evolution, biology, and even some physics. My metaphorical hat is off to you!
Oh, except you forgot to mention the banana. You know, the one that proves that God created the universe since it's just the right size to fit into a person's hand and peels really easy?
I'll of course be glad to do the line by line explanation of where your assertions, tired and overworked as they are, weakly stagger up to the fount of reason to wheeze, collapse and die. But if anyone else would like a go at it, please be my guest.
We now have the weekly evolution post, my friends! Let the games begin!
Peace and lovingkindness to all who visit here, and may all be well, and safe, and happy.
"Then there’s the wonder of the human eye. I wonder which eye evolved first. I guess they evolved together. With lids and tears of course. I wonder why eyes evolved, and which came first--the brain or the eye? I guess they both came together, because one couldn’t evolve without the other. It’s the brain that sees what the eye sees. And don’t forget the skull to hold them. That had to evolve. Eyes need sockets, and brains need a housing. Evolution is just amazing. What's really amazing . . . is that people believe it. Just amazing."
No, whats really amazing is that despite the evidence for it, people don't study it or ignore it because they've made an idol over an old book.
Even more amazing is how you misrepresent the claim. The theory of evolution may be false; I hold no commitment to it, but it only speaks of how life supposedly developed. It does not assert that gravity evolved.
There are some other interesting falsehoods in Ray's post. Not all life forms need oxygen. For some, it is actually toxic. Try reading Microbiology by Daniel V. Lim (p 109.) One of the regular posters on these threads selected as his handle the name of such a life form.
Your lack of knowledge on the subjects of cosmology and evolution is astounding. Whats really amazing...is that people actually believe in supernatural beings. Thats just amazing.
"If there was no sun, there would be no life. It’s amazing how it evolved to where it is now."
Ray, for once we are in total agreement ;)
"Clostridium said...'If there was no oxygen, there would be no life.'
Oh, my xxxx, Ray, do you even think before you post this stuff? I work with anaerobic bacteria; hence my handle. Are you aware that most of the bacteria and archae; the first organisms on earth are intolerant of oxygen? This includes the 100 trillion bacteria in your gut. Wow. Please don't speak on evolution. You don't have a clue."
I removed your blasphemy. He is not your "Lord." Please be more careful in future.
I just don't understand evolution...straw man, etc. Boy you guys are predictable :).
"I just don't understand evolution...straw man, etc. Boy you guys are predictable :)."
Ray, you just claimed that no life would be here if it weren't for oxygen. Have you ever heard of fermentation? Remember this the next time you drink wine or beer...this is an anoxic process. Hydrogenotrophic metabolism was almost certainly the first lifestyle on earth...you know, methanogens, sulfate reducers....no, I'm sure you don't. Also, if you want to claim you do understand evolution, there's an open invitation for a debate.
"I removed your blasphemy. He is not your "Lord." Please be more careful in future."
Who? Lord Brahma? Lord Vishnu? Wanna talk science, Ray? Come on, lets get into the nitty gritty. Why not provide a quote form your new book so I can discredit it before it comes out? You afraid?
Wow, I believe that Ray just admitted that he doesn't understand evolution. It's in the post, just up there!
I just don't understand evolution...
(Or could that be quote mining, perhaps? Not when I extracted the gold nugget from the surrounding inconsequential matter, I suppose.)
You keep trying, Ray, and I love you for that. Oh, and the cartoons are cool as well.
"Clostridium said... 'I removed your blasphemy. He is not your 'Lord.' Please be more careful in future.' Who? Lord Brahma? Lord Vishnu? Wanna talk science, Ray? Come on, lets get into the nitty gritty. Why not provide a quote form your new book so I can discredit it before it comes out? You afraid??"
Terrified :).
That was good!
It really is appalling when people can just outrightly deny our Creator - His fingerprints are over everything!He is just too wonderful and amazing!
I have yet to read an answer that explains how all of Ray's examples of design in nature could have occured by accident.
The truth is our world is a miracle. To believe that it and we "just happened" (even pointing to Natural Selection, which, if God didn't exist, would also have been the product of chance) is illogical.
The conditions of our world did not have to allow the existence of living creatures, and yet it does. Our world does not have to have consistency (chance is inconsistent), yet it does. There are systems and patterns in our world. Why? By chance?
Our surroundings point to a Designer and Creator.
Another amazing thing is the nature of intelligence. Intelligence can be found in nature. The fact we can see math problems in everything is amazing to me. Another interesting aspect of life and nature, is the concept of motion. Motion is very connected to life. Without motion, you cannot have life. Ancient Greeks pondered the idea of motion and could not explain it. Why is there movement? Even in the Bible, the first verse that mentions God, shows him as moving. "And the spirit of God moved across the face of the waters." The planets, stars, and all galactic systems move in harmony with one another. It makes sense that since there are invisible laws that dictate the nature of the universe, there must be a lawmaker. Humans make laws too, its our nature to do so. Law, seems to be the natural order of things. I cannot believe that nothingness, could create laws that lead to life, that lead to human thought, that lead to ingenuity. It just doesn't seem logical. I believe it makes more sense that our minds are little replicas of the one ultimate mind, the mind that could create everything.
"Terrified :)."
Lets go then, my Aussie friend. Let's talk about oxygen metabolism and anaerobiasis. Let's discuss evolution; particularly you're personal problems with it. I'm ready when you are.
Ray,
You brought this up, friend, and replied to it, if you are so sure evolution is wrong it means you must have studied it in depth and have found it wanting. I asked you a question about relative morals on the other post and you are clearly afraid to answer. Now you sarcastically say you are "terrified" to speak with a biologist about evolution. I'm sure you are. You come to an intellectual argument, unarmed.
Ray, we're not talkin about "the atheists nightmare" we are talkin about desulfoviridin and coenzyme M here. If you want to get into this with me you should read the paper describing the genome sequence of Desulfovibrio vulgaris, the paper on structural biology of sulfate-reducing bacteria and the extensive and groundbreaking work by Ferry on methanogens. Once you've read this, it would be interesting to see how you would refute the claim that these bacteria never required oxygen. Look forward to your scientific argument.
Ray, Ray, Ray.....puuuuuleeeeze!
Cease and desist on the physics and science stuff!
14.7 psi is the effect that gravity has on the atmosphere of the earth. The weight of the atmosphere is 14.7 psi.
That is not a measure of the force of gravity. Gravity is measured by the speed of a falling body which is dynamic rather that the weight of a static object such as the atmosphere.
The strength of the gravitational field is numerically equal to the acceleration of objects under its influence, and its value at the Earth's surface, denoted g, is approximately 9.8 m/s² (32.2 ft/s²) as the standard average. This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the earth's surface increases its velocity with 9.8 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent.
Hey Ray, how 'bout you and me testing this out? We'll go up on the Empire State building and I will push you off and measure...ah, maybe better not..**** just kidding!****
Anyhoo, this is high school physics stuff. You DID take high school physics, didn't you?
You come off as churlish and lazy when you start expounding on anything having to do with science.
Just wanted to give you a heads up on that.
@ The athiests who jump on Ray everytime he does this
It's fun to watch how ape you guys go!
@ charles
"I'll of course be glad to do the line by line explanation of where your assertions, tired and overworked as they are, weakly stagger up to the fount of reason to wheeze, collapse and die. But if anyone else would like a go at it, please be my guest."
I'll just give you one Charles. An honest question. How did the oxygen in the air become the right consistency so that humans could live on this planet? And how many other planets have we found with the same consistency? And how different would it have to be for human life to be impossible?
Oh, and lets stop talking about organisms that can live without oxygen, cause they would live but we wouldn't be around to have the conversation.
"No, whats really amazing is that despite the evidence for it, people don't study it or ignore it because they've made an idol over an old book."
Where do you get your idea that there is anything called an "idol"?
This demonstrate why your subsequent post "I am Christian, it doesn't hurt anyone, so leave me alone" - is just plain misleading.
I really don't mind that YOU believe this stuff Raymondo - but what TRULY FRIGHTENS me is the prospect that more and more people are believing this and NOT keeping it to themsleves... They are demanding it be taught in classrooms, that it govern laws and society, that it direct legislation and political discourse.
I fear for a world where such superstitious nonsense and blatant ignorance - such willful dismissal of fact - is all pervasive.
Ray, when you make a incredibly weak restatement of the anthropic principle and follow it up with an ill-conceived argument about the evolution of the eye - an argument made so much and so thoroughly stomped down as to be utterly predictable itself- what happens next is indeed pretty predictable. (Multitudinous configurations of the eye exist even today, from simple photosensitive spots to complex but different eyes like those of humans and elephant shrimp. These include a number of "imperfect" or "suboptimal" eye configurations, such as the human eye configuration's blind spot caused by the placement of the optic nerve.)
So yeah, you've made an argument that you've made before, that more eloquent creationists than you have made before, and that the rest of us know how to refute - that you're being refuted here is utterly predictable.
Ray, what's you answer to your co-religionists like Francis Collins who have spent their entire professional lives studying biology and come up on the side of the reality of biological evolution even if they still believe in God? Collins, as head researcher of the human genome project, is in a far stronger position to comment on the process of evolution than, say, Behe or Dembski, and yet he shares essentially the same views of the nature of biological reality as do any of the atheists who comment here.
Why, Ray, do you think that is?
Someone hinted that there is evidence that the eye has evolved, where is that evidence? Do you even have evidence that the eye could have evolved?
Have you solved how time and chance created the very basic of how sight works at the molecular level?
Do my atheist friends understand that you need first something to detect light, then something to transmit that information and then something to receieve the information and interprit it so that information has any survival value? Without all those things in place you don't have anything that has any value for natural selection to chose from.
What amazes me if the lack of any sceptic sense or shred of doubt that atheist have in mutations, the miracle creator of all things.
I've seen the light. Ray has actually absorbed some advice from evolution supporters on the blog, researched what the theory of evolution actually says, corrected all his misconceptions, and has finally formulated a devastating critique that isn't simply whacking a straw-man. I'd never realized the theory of evolution doesn't explain the position of the sun, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, or the force of gravity.
The scientific community had better prepare for a dramatic paradigm shift. Ray, you'd better sit by the phone, I'm sure the Nobel Prize committee will be wanting to give you something.
Not.
"Clostridium said...Lets go then, my Aussie friend."
New Zealand, Clostridium, New Zealand.
Cypress said,
"How did the oxygen in the air become the right consistency so that humans could live on this planet?"
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Life evolves to the environment...if the oxygen pressure had been different either we wouldn't be here and only very small organisms would exist or our bodies would be adapted to the value about a certain mean. Historically, if you look at insect size vs. oxygen levels there is a direct relation. Both experimental and theoretical models suggest that insect trachae distribution and oxygen percentage limit maximal growth of insects. A study on beetles suggested that today beetles can only grow to a theoretical max of 6 inches...the largest beetle known is the Titanic longhorn beetle which is at this maximal range. 300 million years ago, oxygen content in the atmosphere was ~14% higher than now and we find massive insects. Organisms adapt to their environment; not the other way around. Hope this helps.
"dale said...Hey Ray, how 'bout you and me testing this out? We'll go up on the Empire State building and I will push you off and measure...ah, maybe better not..**** just kidding!****"
Getting desperate are we? Though you think it's a joke, that's showing what your heart would really love to do.
The Christians on here are trying to warn you of something serious, we are not perfect but we put our faith in someone who is, that is - God.
Then you wise crack about pushing someone off of a building, that was pretty low.
Hey Christians--
clostridium just challenged Ray to debate him about evolution. Help me talk Ray into doing it! Let me hear an "AMEN!" I said "Let me hear an "AMEN!"
So--Waddaya say, Ray? You've been making some pretty bold remarks about evo. Think you can back them up?
Looks like you been called, boy.
Mofi asked,
"Someone hinted that there is evidence that the eye has evolved, where is that evidence? Do you even have evidence that the eye could have evolved?"
Mofi, I searched at pubmed scientific articles that include "eye evolution" and came up with 152 pages of scientific publications with over 3000 articles on the subject. I have listed some below, particularly Nilsson's work. You can also go to the "PBS Evolution" site or Youtube and watch the episode on "Eye Evolution". It is very interesting. The most convincing evidence we have, in my opinion, is the discovery of the "toolkit" gene Pax-6 and its phylogeny.
Rétaux S, Pottin K, Alunni A. Shh and forebrain evolution in the blind cavefish Astyanax mexicanus. Biol Cell. 2008 Mar;100(3):139-47.
Yamamoto Y, Stock DW, Jeffery WR. Hedgehog signalling controls eye degeneration in blind cavefish. Nature. 2004 Oct 14;431(7010):844-7.
Jeffery W, Strickler A, Guiney S, Heyser D, Tomarev S. Prox 1 in eye degeneration and sensory organ compensation during development and evolution of the cavefish Astyanax. Dev Genes Evol. 2000 May;210(5):223-30.
Niven JE Evolution: convergent eye losses in fishy circumstances. Curr Biol. 2008 Jan 8;18(1):R27-9.
Nilsson DE, Kelber A. A functional analysis of compound eye evolution.
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2007 Dec;36(4):373-85
Callaerts P, Clements J, Francis C, Hens K. Pax6 and eye development in Arthropoda.
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2006 Dec;35(4):379-91.
Harzsch S, Hafner G. Evolution of eye development in arthropods: Phylogenetic aspects.
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2006 Dec;35(4):319-340.
Purschke G, Arendt D, Hausen H, Müller MC. Photoreceptor cells and eyes in Annelida.
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2006 Dec;35(4):211-30.
Jonasova K, Kozmik Z.Eye evolution: Lens and cornea as an upgrade of animal visual system. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2007
Lamb TD, Collin SP, Pugh EN Jr.Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007 Dec;8(12):960-76.
Fritzsch B, Beisel KW, Pauley S, Soukup G.Molecular evolution of the vertebrate mechanosensory cell and ear.Int J Dev Biol. 2007;51(6-7):663-78.
Nilsson DE. Photoreceptor evolution: ancient siblings serve different tasks.
Curr Biol. 2005 Feb 8;15(3):R94-6.
Nilsson DE. Eye evolution: a question of genetic promiscuity.
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004 Aug;14(4):407-14.
Nilsson DE. Eye ancestry: old genes for new eyes.
Curr Biol. 1996 Jan 1;6(1):39-42.
Nilsson DE, Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve.
Proc Biol Sci. 1994 Apr 22;256(1345):53-8.
"Have you solved how time and chance created the very basic of how sight works at the molecular level?"
Time, chance and necessity, you forgot one.
Here are a few abstracts on this subject:
"Evolutionary analysis of rhodopsin and cone pigments: connecting the three-dimensional structure with spectral tuning and signal transfer.
Teller DC, Stenkamp RE, Palczewski K.
Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. teller@u.washington.edu
Extensive sequence data and structural sampling of expressed proteins from different species lead to the idea that entire molecules or specific domain folds belong to large superfamilies of proteins. A subset of G protein-coupled receptors, one of the largest families involved in cellular signaling, rod and cone opsins are involved in phototransduction in photoreceptor cells. Here, the evolutionary analysis of opsin sequences and structures predicts key residues involved in the transmission of the signal from the binding site of the chromophore to the cytoplasmic surface and residues that are involved in the spectral tuning of opsins to short wavelengths of light."
"Evolutionary trace of G protein-coupled receptors reveals clusters of residues that determine global and class-specific functions.
Madabushi S, Gross AK, Philippi A, Meng EC, Wensel TG, Lichtarge O.
Program in Structural and Computational Biology and Molecular Biophysics, Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) activation mediated by ligand-induced structural reorganization of its helices is poorly understood. To determine the universal elements of this conformational switch, we used evolutionary tracing (ET) to identify residue positions commonly important in diverse GPCRs. When mapped onto the rhodopsin structure, these trace residues cluster into a network of contacts from the retinal binding site to the G protein-coupling loops. Their roles in a generic transduction mechanism were verified by 211 of 239 published mutations that caused functional defects. When grouped according to the nature of the defects, these residues sub-divided into three striking sub-clusters: a trigger region, where mutations mostly affect ligand binding, a coupling region near the cytoplasmic interface to the G protein, where mutations affect G protein activation, and a linking core in between where mutations cause constitutive activity and other defects. Differential ET analysis of the opsin family revealed an additional set of opsin-specific residues, several of which form part of the retinal binding pocket, and are known to cause functional defects upon mutation. To test the predictive power of ET, we introduced novel mutations in bovine rhodopsin at a globally important position, Leu-79, and at an opsin-specific position, Trp-175. Both were functionally critical, causing constitutive G protein activation of the mutants and rapid loss of regeneration after photobleaching. These results define in GPCRs a canonical signal transduction mechanism where ligand binding induces conformational changes propagated through adjacent trigger, linking core, and coupling regions."
"Light stimulates growth of proteorhodopsin-containing marine Flavobacteria.
Gómez-Consarnau L, González JM, Coll-Lladó M, Gourdon P, Pascher T, Neutze R, Pedrós-Alió C, Pinhassi J.
Marine Microbiology, Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Kalmar, SE-39182 Kalmar, Sweden.
Proteorhodopsins are bacterial light-dependent proton pumps. Their discovery within genomic material from uncultivated marine bacterioplankton caused considerable excitement because it indicated a potential phototrophic function within these organisms, which had previously been considered strictly chemotrophic. Subsequent studies established that sequences encoding proteorhodopsin are broadly distributed throughout the world's oceans. Nevertheless, the role of proteorhodopsins in native marine bacteria is still unknown. Here we show, from an analysis of the complete genomes of three marine Flavobacteria, that cultivated bacteria in the phylum Bacteroidetes, one of the principal components of marine bacterioplankton, contain proteorhodopsin. Moreover, growth experiments in both natural and artificial seawater (low in labile organic matter, which is typical of the world's oceans) establish that exposure to light results in a marked increase in the cell yield of one such bacterium (Dokdonia sp. strain MED134) when compared with cells grown in darkness. Thus, our results show that the phototrophy conferred by proteorhodopsin can provide critical amounts of energy, not only for respiration and maintenance but also for active growth of marine bacterioplankton in their natural environment."
Bacteria have the same pigments we have, much of the same fundamental biochemistry. If you are interested in what we know now, do some research. Ray simply claims by fiat that we have no evidence and that it is silly to think eyes evolved....and quotes of all people Charles Darwin when he should be challenging all the developmental biologists and molecular biologists today working on this problem. He doesn't cite any scientific papers and show where they are wrong, he just appeals to your personal incredulity and his own on the subject. Luckily we have people working on difficult problems and it is a shame that Ray can just blow off work that took decades to finish-entire careers.
"Do my atheist friends understand that you need first something to detect light, then something to transmit that information and then something to receieve the information and interprit it so that information has any survival value? Without all those things in place you don't have anything that has any value for natural selection to chose from.
What amazes me if the lack of any sceptic sense or shred of doubt that atheist have in mutations, the miracle creator of all things."
Yeah, to find the origins of this we look in marine bacteria who use light to tell which way is "up" and which way is "down" this powers the direction of their flagella through cell signaling. These same fundamental pathways and photoreceptors are found in all higher organisms.
"Ray, when you make a incredibly weak restatement of the anthropic principle..."
What I think is funny also is that the anthropic prinicple is an alternative to the design argument. All Ray has done is tell us we live in a life-friendly place; thank you Dr. Obvious...we wouldn't be here to make that observation otherwise now would we?
Cypress Christian:
If the oxygen content of the atmosphere were different, humans wouldn't be here; but intelligent beings suited to the different atmosphere might. Even according to "intelligent design," life was "designed" for the environment it inhabits. That "miracle" is similar to looking at a license plate in front of you and noting how unlikely it was to see <i>that particular plate.
Cypress,
You said:
"I'll just give you one Charles. An honest question. How did the oxygen in the air become the right consistency so that humans could live on this planet?"
You've got it backwards again. Most life on the planet evolved to take advantage of the atmosphere no matter what it would have been.
There are a lot of organisms that do not use oxyge, in fact, oxygen is TOXIC to them. If the atmosphere had been different, life would have been different.
mofi,
You said someone "hinted" that the eye evolved.
This is not a hint. Obviously you have no training in much of anything, especially biology. Just because you don't have a clue how the eye evolved doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Perhaps you coud take some time away from your praying and actually study the subject.
You do know what a search engine is don't you?
You have a public library?
I would suggest you use them.
Here is just a short brief that answers your questions.
Remember, as we go up the geologic column, it is obvious that the organisms eyes become increasingly complex.
"Early eyes
The basic light-processing unit of the eye is the photoreceptor, a specialized cell consisting of two molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. When a photon is absorbed by the chromophore, a chemical reaction causes the photon's energy to be transduced into electrical energy and relayed to the nervous system. These photoreceptor cells form part of the retina, a thin layer of cells that relays visual information, as well as the light and daylength information needed by the circadian rhythm system, to the brain.
The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they can not distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot acts as a sort of directional eye, allowing the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,[16][17] and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms.
It is likely that a key reason eyes specialize in detecting a specific, narrow range of wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum—the visible spectrum—is because the earliest species to develop photosensitivity were aquatic, and only two specific ranges of electromagnetic radiation can travel through water, the most significant of which is visible light. This same light-filtering property of water also influenced the photosensitivity of plants.[18][19][20]
The planarium has "cup" eyespots that can slightly distinguish light direction.The multicellular eyepatch gradually depressed into a cup, which first granted the ability to discriminate brightness in directions, then in finer and finer directions as the pit deepened. While flat eyespots were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate the exact same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed very limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon its angle. Pit eyes, which had arisen by the Cambrian period, were seen in ancient snails, and are found in some invertebrates living today, such as planaria. Planaria can slightly differentiate the direction and intensity of light because of their cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented retina cells, which shield the light-sensitive cells from exposure in all directions except for the single opening for the light. However, this proto-eye is still much more useful for detecting the absence or presence of light than its direction; this gradually changes as the eye's pit deepens and the number of photoreceptive cells grows, allowing for increasingly precise visual information.-----
To all the atheists that continue to try to dazzle everyone with your big fancy words...Blah, Blah, Blah!! We have heard it all before and guess what...you are still not convincing. Nobody is biting. We have lost faith in scientist to answer some very basic questions like, “Why are we here? How can everything come from nothing? Why is there anything instead of nothing? Or, if information comes from a mind, then how can the information from DNA have originated from inert chemicals?” They come up with silly things like Punctuated Equilibrium to explain the Cambrian Explosion or multi-verses to explain how everything came from nothing. Silly, silly, silly! Is it no wonder that we laugh at your scientific mumbo jumbo?! You don’t have to be a scientist to see that the God of the Bible makes way more sense and answers ALL of our questions with logic and reason. But if you want to put a bag over your head and continue to believe your scientists and worship at their altar, it is a free country, you go right ahead. After all we are still allowed freedom of thought and speech are we not?
So, Ray, I'm guessing the only way people win the lottery is through divine intervention? After all, the odds are so heavily stacked against hitting the jackpot - there's no way it could just happen.
It’s amazing how [the sun] evolved to where it is now . . . It's amazing how gravity was able to evolve, all by itself.
Other commenters have already pointed this out, but it's such a glaring bit of silliness on your part that I think it needs to be highlighted.
The sun didn't evolve. Gravity didn't evolve. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about physics or astrophysics. The eye, however, did evolve, and if you'd take the time to actually study the matter, you could probably understand the basic principles underlying its evolution. (I understand that this is a bit more intellectually taxing than just saying "God did it!"; I'm sorry, but there's no way around that.)
I wonder why eyes evolved, and which came first--the brain or the eye? . . . And don’t forget the skull to hold [the eyes]. That had to evolve. Eyes need sockets, and brains need a housing.
Well, Ray, the short answer is that the eye came before the brain; clusters of photoreceptive proteins known as eyespots can be observed in unicellular organisms such as Euglena. It is thought that these eyespots are the ancestors of the many and diverse forms of eyes extant today. Eyes don't need brains, at least in their most primitive form, and they certainly don't need skulls: if you doubt me on this latter point, just take a look at an ant or an octopus. Eyes? Yes. Skull? Not so much.
@ everyone
I would really enjoy an answer to the question I asked just a few posts ago. All the athiests go absolutely bonkers about Ray's "ignorance" here but don't seem to want to explain why he's so "ignorant", they just say, "well it's so obvious and Ray is stupid." I will, for now, assume that someone answered my question but that Ray hasn't read it and posted it yet.
@ dale
At no time was Ray asking for the values of that basic stuff. He was asking HOW those things came about. How did the gravitational pull of the earth become 9.8 m/s squared? Answer him that.
Oh, and please answer my question on "The Elephant in the Room." You said:
"Our morals evolved along with us. Humans had ethics and morals long before the God of the Hebrews was invented by men."
My question is:
So our morals are encoded in our DNA? Where did those early humans get their morals?
Also, I gave you some more evidence for the eye witness accounts of the gospels, but I know you'll ignore it like you've done every other time.
To the evolutionists:
It's tough to know what is fact or fiction when one expert says "this is solid proof, never to be disproven" and then you find another expert who denies that something should have ever been taken seriously by scientists.
Without getting too indepth, what is your explaination of evolution.
How would you explain it in say....4 paragraphs. Just a broad overview. You bust on Ray's post, so rewrite in as short as 4 paragraphs as he did.
Thanks to anyone who responds to this and thanks Garrett for the reminder to be respectful.
:)
I liked Leon Brown's question to one atheist while he was open air preaching, he asked the man, "How many grains of sand are in the beach out there" (referring to the beach that was nearby) The man of course says "I have no idea", Leon goes on to say "And you're gonna tell me there is no God. And you can't tell me how many grains of sand are there. In this big world, so infinite and vast you can't tell me how many grains of sand are there, and yet you can tell me there is no God"
Likewise its funny, no its sad, how most of these guys/gals believe in something that might as well be wrong, since science is ever so changing, but they can tell us with certainty that we are deluded, misguided, misled, idiots, etc...
Let me quote you a little something: Job 38
"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements--surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
"Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band,
and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
"Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment.
From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.
"Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this.
"Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home?
You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!
"Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?
What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?
"Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt, to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man, to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass?
"Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew?
From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven?
The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?
Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?
"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you?
Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, 'Here we are'?
Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind?
Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens,
when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together?"
Such a vast universe, so many things your precious science cannot tell you or aren't sure about and yet you make such certain claims about the existence of God, not just that some of you call us believers dim, or silly, or stupid. Its better for you to admit that while you don't really know if God exists or not, you just prefer man's version of truth whether its wrong or right and be a law unto yourself.
I would really enjoy an answer to the question I asked just a few posts ago. All the athiests go absolutely bonkers about Ray's "ignorance" here but don't seem to want to explain why he's so "ignorant", they just say, "well it's so obvious and Ray is stupid." I will, for now, assume that someone answered my question but that Ray hasn't read it and posted it yet.
I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that Ray is stupid. However, I do feel perfectly comfortable in saying that he is scientifically illiterate (or at least, that he does a very fine impression of a scientifically illiterate man on the internet).
Proof? Well, let's start with this very post. Ray suggests that both gravity and the sun "evolved"; he conflates gravity with air pressure, and doesn't seem to understand that gravity is a fundamental force of physics, not unique to this planet; he seems completely unaware that the first life evolved under anoxic conditions; he claims that the eye must have evolved simultaneously not only with the brain, but also with the skull. (I can see where a layperson might make the eye/brain mistake, but the whole eye/skull thing? Does Ray really not know that invertebrates have eyes, too?)
I suspect that Ray's scientific illiteracy is not the product of innate inability, but rather willful ignorance, born of a careful avoidance of any and all information that might possibly contradict his personal interpretation of a book of bronze-age mythology.
Cypress,
"How did the gravitational pull of the earth become 9.8 m/s squared? Answer him that."
The present laws of physics came into effect about a millionth of a second after the big bang.
Gravity is a physical constant. Gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the body.
Now I am sure you will say 'why is gravity a physical constant of that value. That is your M.O.
Those arguments can go on infinitum. You can ask who set the speed of light? speed of sound? etc, etc. No matter how far down you try to drill, it still doesn't prove the existence of a supernatural power.
Even so, you state that this power created the universe ex nihilo (from nothing.) We know all the mass of the universe was there before the big bang but it was highy compressed. It is a hypothesis that the big bang resulted from a previous universe collapsing on itself until the heat and mass reached a critical state, expoded and here we are.
The good part is that we can see the background radiation that ws created by the big bang.
You might as well forget your arguments for the existence of a superbatural power and just believe your book by faith because much smarter humans than you have tried to find evidence but they never have.
That is the idea of teaching ID/ creationism in the school biology is so absurd. ID/ creationism has no data or hypothesis or theory whatsoever to refute evolution and that is that all they can say is that God-did-it. That is all you have.
We do not know what the laws of physics were before the big bang and neither do you
Camport,
Oh that is really funny!
Ray writes 4 paragraphs of doubletalk so you challenge me to explain evolution in 4 paragraphs.
Get real. That's absolutely absurd.
rebecca in tx said:
To all the atheists that continue to try to dazzle everyone with your big fancy words...Blah, Blah, Blah!! We have heard it all before and guess what...you are still not convincing...Silly, silly, silly! Is it no wonder that we laugh at your scientific mumbo jumbo?! You don’t have to be a scientist to see that the God of the Bible makes way more sense and answers ALL of our questions with logic and reason.
Rebecca, I so want to hug you right now! It's only Sunday afternoon, and you have already given us what must be the best post of the week. Thank you!
Now, if I understand you correctly, your claim is that since you don't understand what science is saying, it can't be true. And so the Bible must be true, since it's easier to understand. Do you want to stand by your words, because it sound to me like your clapping your hands over your ears and saying: "La la la, I can't hear you!"
If this is the case, please remove from your house all electronic devices (TV, phone, microwave, blender), all medications from asprin to insulin, all food that you haven't grown yourself or doesn't come from a nearby vegetable patch, any clothes that weren't spun on a loom or cut from animal skins, your car along with anything else made of metal that wasn't hand-forged, and keep going until you've eliminated everything that wasn't available to people living back in the Bronze Age. Throw it all away. All of it. Every bit of it is a direct result of centuries of scientific progress, and since in your world science, since it's so hard to understand, just can't be true, then none of the results of science can be true or real either. I'm sorry that you won't have your computer any more to read any more posts after this one, but since the theories of electromagnetism must also be lies, needing big words to explain them, then you'll have to give that up too.
It's the same science. The same process of hypothesis, experimentation, gathering data, revision, thought and research that makes the modern world possible is the very same science that explains biological diversity and modification, otherwise known as the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
So the game continues. Ray or another Christian here makes a blatantly untrue statement, gets called out on it, is given ample reasoning, backed by documented evidence to show where the error lies, and the response is: "La la la, it's just all big words I don't understand, I can't hear you!" This doesn't appear to me to be an atmosphere conducive to honest debate.
I hope I haven't come across as sounding too harsh, and I hope that I've still stayed within the bounds of civility, Christian or otherwise, so that Ray sees fit to let these thoughts be shared. I'm saddened more than anything else, because I try in my heart to think better of human beings. Willful ignorance is not only sad, it's a blasphemy against the nobility of human nature. We can do better and we should do better.
Cypress, my brother, I see that a number of excellent responses have already been posted, but I'd also like to have a go at answering your question.
Here's your specific question: How did the oxygen in the air become the right consistency so that humans could live on this planet? And how many other planets have we found with the same consistency? And how different would it have to be for human life to be impossible?
I first have to lay out the context of my answer, and in the process, provide an answer to the bigger question that will cover your more specific one.
Clostridium (big shout out, my friend in rationality!) and others have already pointed out that you've in a sense already answered your own question. If indeed this planet weren't friendly to our particular type of life, then we wouldn't be here to speculate about it. But what you're doing is arguing backwards. The planet hasn't be set up for our convenience, just like the nose hasn't been designed to hold up eyeglasses (to give a famous example). Human beings, along with every other life form on this planet, have become what they are in response to the sort of planet this is, and not the other way around.
I suppose that if you cling to the creationist view, then you can simply believe that everything was put together exactly like it is, and that our tiny planet, out of all others in the universe, was specifically designed for people to live on. If you want to accept that, then fine, the discussion is over.
However.
The reason that I, along with other visitors to this blog, don't subscribe to a creationist creed, is that the evidence that creationists can only ignore, the mountains and mountains of data, theory, and hypothesis, is far more consistant with a naturalistic world that has no need of a Creator, and in fact, gives every indication that it indeed doesn't have one. The more we learn, the less room there is for God to hide. That is, every time we figure something out about how the universe works, that's one less thing that calls for a supernatural explanation. Non-creationists don't hate God, nor can we or anyone else prove that such a being does or doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative, on the one hand. For example, you'll never be able to prove positively that there isn't a McDonald's shake orbiting Venus. Nor can you prove the existance of a being who has ultimate control over reality, since he can change the rules however he wants at any time. We can't prove anything for certain about such an entity, but we can show that such a being is increasingly unlikely. That, I think, is what troubles theists; not that atheists are so certain that God doesn't exist, but simply that God can be shown to be ever more unnecessary. Three thousand years ago it took God to be able to explain how rain fell. Now no longer. And so on.
This isn't even the main point that I wanted to make. What people fail to understand when they ask why the universe is the way it is, why it seems so miraculous that life can exist here, is that they don't grasp the shear immensity of the universe.
Let me explain by demonstration. This is something that everyone should try at home.
Let's first look at our own solar system. We're going to map it out using correct proportions, rather than the greatly compressed version that you usually see. Grab a bowling ball, or another ball about 8 inches in diamter. That represents the Sun. Proportionatly, the Earth will only be the size of a peppercorn or a BB, less than a 1/10 of an inch in diameter. On this scale, even Jupiter, which is larger than all the other planets combined, is only the size of a chestnut, still less than an inch in diameter. But that's not the fun part. If we go outside to lay out our planets on the ground in a correct representation of their distances from the Sun and each other, then you'll need to at least start on a football field, or better yet, a long stretch of road. The distance from the Sun to the earth is going to be 26 yards. You have to go another 14 yards before you get to the orbit of Mars. Then comes the big jump: another 95 yards to get to Jupiter. And you won't make it to Saturn for another 112 yards after that. If you want to keep going all the way out to where the former planet Pluto lives, which is really the beginning of a massive swath of orbiting rocks, ice and debris, you'll be more than half a mile away from the sun. I very much doubt that you'll be able to spot the bowling ball from that far away, much less the BB that is Earth. Our solar system is really almost completely empty.
Let's go on to the nearest star. Using the same scale -- our sun the size of a bowling ball, then the very nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is going to be over 11,000 miles away from that bowling ball. That's the nearest star, only 4.2 light years away in real space, with near absolute emptiness in between. Stars are that far apart from each other and yet, compared to the size of our galaxy, we're practically right next to each other.
We'll have to shift to a different scale to understand how big our galaxy, home to from 200 to 400 billion stars, really is. If we compress our entire galaxy down to the size of a sandbox, something roughly oval about 20 feet across, then the Sun and Proxima Centauri will be two pieces of sand that are touching each other, and the Earth is a microscopic piece of dust on the side of one of those specks of sand. Our next-door neighbor galaxy, Andromeda, is another sandbox about 1/3 of a mile away from our sandbox. And if you'd like to keep going, then the known universe works out to be, say, the size of the earth, with billions of sandboxes scattered all over the continants and all through the Earth as well. (It is a three-dimensional universe after all.)
The point? Two seemingly contradictory ideas fall out from all of this. First, we can see that the universe is still almost entirely empty space, with hardly anything there at all. Hardly a place that we could claim is brimming over with life. You'd have to wonder why God would bother with a place that is essentially nothing. In such a place, life might be very rare indeed, just a submicroscopic scraping on the surface of that speck of dust on the side of a grain of sand. On the other hand, with all the untold, unimagianable billions of billions of stars in the universe that could be host to planets where life emerged, it seems very unlikely indeed that ours is the only one.
The hard part in figuring out just how many other planets with life on them there really are, we'd have to be able to examine other worlds to see how unusual, or common, ours really is. But I think it's now clear that the other stars are too far away, and their planets, except for a few giants even larger than Jupiter, are too small to detect. So we don't know what the requirements are for life to emerge, much less intelligent life. We have nothing with which to compare. There may be all kinds of other environments, not at all like ours, where life has also found a way to flourish, though in a way that could be very unlike life on this planet.
So we simply don't know how unique our own planet's set-up really is. The odds seem quite long that it's only planets with conditions exactly like our own that can host life. On the other hand, even if that were true, the odds are even more likely that out of all the billions of billions of other worlds that must be out there, there should be more than just a few that are indeed exactly like ours.
I don't think I've answered your exact question about oxygen, but others have already done a fine job with the short answer anyway. What I hope is that, by putting your question into its proper context, I've at least given a reasonable refutation of the notion that our planet had to have had a creator, since everything here is set up to be exactly the way we need it to be. If you don't quite get it, try going back and thinking it through again.
And it's been quite a pleasure to feel the spirit of my hero, Dr Carl Sagan, helping me out. He was a genuinely great man, and one I admire tremendously.
"Hey Christians--
clostridium just challenged Ray to debate him about evolution. Help me talk Ray into doing it! Let me hear an "AMEN!" I said "Let me hear an "AMEN!"
So--Waddaya say, Ray? You've been making some pretty bold remarks about evo. Think you can back them up?
Looks like you been called, boy."
Ray has absolutely been called (not relatively if anyone is confused). What he will undoubtedly do is frantically add 6 or 7 new posts and bury this one so he doesn't have to deal with it. What a coward; so sure in his convictions until challenged by someone who knows something about the subject.
Ray, how old do you think the earth is?
"Clostridium said...
Ray, how old do you think the earth is"
I have no idea. I can't find a date on it.
@ dale
"Gravity is a physical constant. Gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the body."
So how much bigger could our earth be and still support human life? How much smaller?
"Those arguments can go on infinitum. You can ask who set the speed of light? speed of sound? etc, etc. No matter how far down you try to drill, it still doesn't prove the existence of a supernatural power."
You're right, I could ask all those questions, you wouldn't have the answers, and they still wouldn't prove God. But what it does, is make my position more logical than yours.
You are sitting here enjoying those constants and making conclusions about how they came about but you can't explain how they came about. That seems quite illogical.
"We know all the mass of the universe was there before the big bang but it was highy compressed."
You KNOW no such thing. It's a theory, one with no physical evidence to back it up. Just like your shrinking universe theory. You know our universe is expanding right? So it's going to reverse and fall back in on itself? C'mon, now you're really stretching.
Oh, and dale, please answer my morality question.
"I have no idea. I can't find a date on it."
Roughly, my "terrified" Christian friend. Roughly how old do you consider the earth to be?
@ dale
Sorry about the morality thing again, you did answer my question, I just didn't look at "The Elephant in the Room" yet. Thanks.
Laura/ Charles/ Clos,
Thanks for the very well written and thought out comments.
I still haven't seen any exlanation as to how all the design and purpose we see in the world could be by chance and without guidance from Someone who wanted life to exist on this Earth.
Someone said, "All Ray has done is tell us we live in a life-friendly place; thank you Dr. Obvious...we wouldn't be here to make that observation otherwise now would we?" Right, but the chances are essentially zilch that the universe as we see it--and we--could have come about by fat luck. The fact, then, that we ARE here then does not support a belief that God does not exist; it SUPPORTS it.
Life does not have to exist, especially the immensely complex and varied life we see. Nothing we see has to exist, yet it does. And because nothing has to exist, we ask, "Why does it?"
You can talk forever about the details of gravity and bateria, trying to point out the reasonableness of evolution, but unless you can scientifically explain how the universe is an accident, your speech is in vain. Show how empirical science proves that blind chance is the reason for the universe's existence, and then you can begin to talk about evolution.
Charles:
Your entire post regarding our solar system, the universe and how vast a space exists, and how many billions of stars are out there, etc. has done more to convince me that God does indeed exist than to convince me there is no God. You are probably confused about this because I know that your post wasn't intended for that purpose and was intended to do the opposite. But in knowing how utterly enormous and awesome our universe is, it is a wonder and a testament at how awesome the Creator God is. Most of it may indeed be "empty space" but it is just how much "empty space" exists that is so incredible.
You claim that it is inconceivable and unlikely that our planet is unique in harboring life and that, therefore, there are more than likely other planets in the universe that have the conditions to foster life. However, just because it is inconceivable to you does not mean it is true. As of now we have no evidence that life exists outside of this planet. Wishing or imagining that there is life on other planets does not make it so. That is the stuff of science fiction.
You say things like:
"On the other hand, with all the untold, unimagianable billions of billions of stars in the universe that could be host to planets where life emerged, it seems very unlikely indeed that ours is the only one."
and
"There may be all kinds of other environments, not at all like ours, where life has also found a way to flourish, though in a way that could be very unlike life on this planet."
and
"The odds seem quite long that it's only planets with conditions exactly like our own that can host life"
and
"...the odds are even more likely that out of all the billions of billions of other worlds that must be out there, there should be more than just a few that are indeed exactly like ours."
This all sounds like wishful thinking on your part. Just beacause it is inconceivable to you that our planet would be the only planet in the universe with life does not mean that there is life on other planets. The more we explore space, the universe, and other planets the more we come up empty in finding life elsewhere. The odds are that the more we explore and come up empty the more likely it is that God does exists. This is part of what the bible describes as the heavens "declaring the glory of God".
Ray said - If there was no sun, there would be no life. It’s amazing how it evolved to where it is now. Sitting there in the sky, 93 million miles away from us. If it was a little closer, we would all die. If it was further away, we would all die; along with everything else. How did it evolve to position itself in just the right place? It's amazing.
Yeah, and like I pointed out in another thread - the sun will eventually be the cause of the end of life on Earth, if something else hasn't caused it by the time the Sun expands and almost envelops the Earth's orbit.
Thanks again for helping me point out that humans are unable to survive in pretty much 100% of the universe that your "loving, perfect" God created for us.
Plus, thanks for all the misrepresentations of evolution, Ray. I never get tired of laughing at your lies and misdirection. I'm sure Jesus is proud that you lie so much for him.
Evolution breaks a law of biology.
Biogenesis- Life always comes from life.
No scientist has ever seen chemicals come together by natural processes to produce life.
No life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter. The Miller-Urey experiment was debunked as false.
CLOS!! heres a reply to Shannon's Theory:
The concept of information simpliied for yas.
On the basis of Shannon’s information THEORY, when mathematically complete, you happily extend the concept of information as far as the fifth level (from statistics to apobetics). Here the most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of those great discoveries:
1.No information can exist without a code.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.
The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.
We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.
What's amazing to me is the atheist's disregard for the Wonderful God who created them...oh yeah, they don't believe in God. So tell me clostridium, charles, or anyone else, if God does not exist then why do you have to try so hard to deny his existence?
The obvious reason is the hardness of your own heart, and that you have a disdain for what is True.
If God indeed was not real, then we would not be having this conversation.
This thread would be comical if it were not for the fact that people's eternal souls are at stake.
This is not a scientific issue nor can it be explained scientifically.
Scientific theories will change every decade or so as new data is 'discovered'. Meanwhile the Word of God, which does NOT change, continues to be rejected by the masses.
Both sides of the argument can claim 'willful ignorance'. I admit that I have no desire to study Hitchens, Darwin, Dawkins etc.. (Honestly, I don't even read most of the very long posts on this board - too time consuming and they only rehash the same old stuff). They deny Jesus Christ as Lord and so I have no desire to read them.
Likewise, the atheist must claim willful ignorance because he/she refuses to address the real issue of their sinful heart or they flat out reject it. Both conclusions show ignorance.
Unless you are willing to addres the sinful condition of your heart then your origin doesn't matter - its your destination that you should be concerned about.
"For the wages of sin is death..but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Romans 6:23
Let's debate THIS shall we?
Bill
"So tell me clostridium, charles, or anyone else, if God does not exist then why do you have to try so hard to deny his existence?"
It's really not as hard as you'd think :> It's about as difficult as denying the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or ghosts, goblins, fairies, Santa Claus. (I like how Ray has taken this, excised god and now adds "evolution"). The reason we are here arguing about this is because you people are scaring us!! This country is being taken over by the religious right and the rest of us are fed up. Keep your god out of our government, out of our classroom and out of my face. It's our turn to do the pushing. If I wanted to live in Iran I would move there. This is the predicted backlash from 8 years of fundies.
To answer all you atheists, and expound on Ray's comments:
The Anthropic Principle demonstrates that, for life on earth to be possible, the universe needed to be the size that it is.
Robert Jastrow—
“The Anthropic Principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it's even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed for man to live in , it is a very theistic result.”
What is the Anthropic Principle? It says that the universe has been finely tuned—precisely “tweaked” to support life here on earth.
For example—
Oxygen comprises 21% of the atmosphere. If it were 25% spontaneous fires would break out. If it were 15% we’d suffocate. In other words, 21% is exactly what we need and it’s exactly what we have.
The gravitational force, if it were altered by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, our Sun would not exist. The moon would crash into the earth or fly off into space.
(That is an incredibly minute change in the gravitational force which would prohibit life on this planet)
If the centrifugal force did not precisely balance the gravitational force nothing would be held into orbit and the planets could crash into each other.
The universe is expanding. If it were expanding at a rate 1/millionth slower than it is now the temperature on earth would be 10,000 degrees.
The average distance between stars in our galaxy, which contains roughly 100 million stars, is 30 trillion miles (the space shuttle travels at 17,000 miles per hour or 5 miles a second—at that speed it would take over 1.7 billion years to travel from one star to another in our galaxy). If the distance between those stars were altered slightly, the orbits would become erratic and extreme temperature variations would occur here on earth.
(Carl Sagan was wrong; we need that space for life on earth to be possible.)
Any one of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light; therefore, even the slightest variations in the speed of light would alter all the other constants and negate the possibility of life here on earth.
If Jupiter wasn’t the size it is or in its current orbit life on earth probably wouldn’t be possible. You see because Jupiter is so big it acts like a cosmic vacuum cleaner. Its gravitational field is so strong that all the asteroids and other space junk that could slam into the earth get sucked into Jupiter.
The thickness of the earths crust is just right to support life.
The rotation of the earth is just right—24 hours. If it were faster, say 15 hours the wind velocities along the surface of the earth would be too great, if it were slower, say 36 hours the temperature of the earth would be too hot during the day and too cold at night for us to survive.
The axial tilt of the earth is exactly what it needs to be for life to be possible on this planet—23%.
God has even designed lightening for a purpose and precisely regulates it. If the atmospheric discharge rate was greater there would be too much fire destruction, if it were less there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.
And we could go on and on but I think you get the picture.
In light of the Anthropic Principle—I haven’t got enough faith to be an atheist.
The universe demonstrates such precision and intricate design, it has been so finely tweaked to support life here on earth that there is absolutely no other explanation than what the Psalmist said—
Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God and the expanse of the universe shows His craftsmanship.
Psalms 8:1 (NKJV)
1 O LORD, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth, Who have set Your glory above the heavens!
If we’re just the result of chemical processes and chemicals are amoral—then where did morality come from? Evolution can’t explain it but the Bible tells us.