This is an argument I've heard countless times from Christians. I heard it a lot from callers on The Atheist Experience. Some people seem to think that the trees, and the sky, and the clouds are the ultimate proof of a Creator. How they think this is beyond me. These aren't the only lame arguments I've heard. I'm sure a lot of you have heard the watchmaker argument, as well as similar arguments. In the end, they all fail.

I tend to lean more to science then religion. Evolution seems to make more sense then just some guy going BAM and everything appearing out of nowhere..

Yes, I always go where evidence leads me. If there's not a shread of evidence to back it up, then chances are I won't believe it. There's just no good reason to believe something based on faith.

I am part Christian, but I don't believe that. My friends do though. They think God created the whole world. I mean what the heck God didn't create the world, but they can believe what they believe.

But all those things have evidence of the evolution theory, don't they? If a species can't evolve and change to adapt to its surroundings, then it'll die out. The argument against science I most often hear is that it, like...eliminates responsibility and takes all the wonder out of everything. I'm of a different opinion. I don't think you should only be good because you think you have a higher power watching your every move. If anything, it might be better not to have said higher power - it forces you to take responsibility for your own actions and to realize that YOU are in control of what you do.

As for the "taking out the wonder" thing, the more I learn about the way the world is, the more I want to learn MORE. So it creates wonder instead of destroying it, for me at least XD

And I love oak trees, but I...have have yet to see proof of God in any of them D:

Explain this to me. Why is it that trees create the exact thing that we need? It doesn't need us specifically. It needs the carbon dioxide that comes from us. So why does it create oxygen? The odds? Not likely.

Also explain this. What did the universe come from? God. What did God come from? Nothing. Time is something only in our physical realm. Time is an invention of God's.

Without God, what made everything start? Every scientist, before they graduate, has to admit that something has to set everything in motion. Something cannot come from nothing.

Explain this to me. Why is it that trees create the exact thing that we need? It doesn't need us specifically. It needs the carbon dioxide that comes from us. So why does it create oxygen? The odds? Not likely.

Evolution. There wasn't always plant life. In fact, according to ecology.com, the oldest known plant is "a form of blue-green algae which appeared and lived in the oceans about 3.4 billion years ago according to the fossil record, protected from the harmful high energy radiation of the Sun." So what we have here is not deliberate design, but exploitation of environmental conditions through the evolution of DNA.

EDIT: forgot to mention that this article states that plants came well after the first organisms.

Here's a link if you want to read it yourself: http://ecology.com/features/quietevolutiontrees/quietevolutiontrees.html

Also explain this. What did the universe come from? God. What did God come from? Nothing. Time is something only in our physical realm. Time is an invention of God's.

The current Big Bang theory speculates that all matter in the known universe was present in a small ball, which expanded and formed elements through nuclear fusion. There is one theory called inflationary theory that explains the origin of this matter, yet I am not wholly familiar with it. The universe, and the matter in it, did not just appear out of nowhere.

Without God, what made everything start? Every scientist, before they graduate, has to admit that something has to set everything in motion. Something cannot come from nothing.

And yet, a moment ago, you said this: "What did the universe come from? God. What did God come from? Nothing. Time is something only in our physical realm."

And no, matter and energy cannot come from nothing. That's why the Laws of Conservation state that "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed." Energy is conserved in all natural processes.

Overall a big, fat God of the gaps argument. Not surprising.

Look. Bacteria life could not evolve so quickly and then change.

Hint: there to be oxygen already there. That means plants had to already be there.

You fail to see the point. God does not follow logic of humanity. There is no time that limits God.

And I am fully aware of the 13 different Big bang

Look. Bacteria life could not evolve so quickly and then change.

Says who? You?

Hint: there to be oxygen already there. That means plants had to already be there.

You do know what an anaerobic life form is, don't you? It's a life form that not only doesn't need oxygen, but in fact, exposure to oxygen can kill it. Go here:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/323/Anaerobic.html

You fail to see the point. God does not follow logic of humanity. There is no time that limits God.

"Time" is not an object. It's a relative measurement to the change that occurs in matter over a certain period. So no, God wouldn't be limited by "time" because it is a human concept.

However, this does not give you license to think that God absolutely and definitely exists. If you say stuff like "God exists because he doesn't need to be bound by human logic", then you could pretty much make any claim and have it be true.

And I am fully aware of the 13 different Big bang

I was only aware of 1 Big Bang theory. Please cite your source that says there are 13 of them.

Yes I am fully aware of what an aerobic life-form is. I also know that it has to eat EXTREMELY quickly or it will die.

Where was the food? It doesn't eat dirt.

Also. Where did the matter from the Big Bang come from? And where did that come from? And that. And that. And that.

IT DIDN'T! You are obviously unaware of physics in our universe. Nothing can come from nothing.

God doesn't follow our rules. He invented the rules.

Yes I am fully aware of what an aerobic life-form is. I also know that it has to eat EXTREMELY quickly or it will die.

Where was the food? It doesn't eat dirt.

If you looked at my source, it says that they got energy from oxygen-less organic compounds. My source answers that question and yet you're asking it. That tells me you didn't read it.

Also. Where did the matter from the Big Bang come from? And where did that come from? And that. And that. And that.

And that is what is in the process of being discovered. No one has a definite answer. The Big Bang theory does have a fair bit of evidence, but still not quite enough.

IT DIDN'T! You are obviously unaware of physics in our universe. Nothing can come from nothing.

Uh, yes I am. Try going back up my posts and looking where I cite the Laws of Conservation. Now I KNOW you're not reading.

God doesn't follow our rules. He invented the rules.

And this is where your argument falls apart. Unless you can show me how God can violate the laws of the known universe, your case holds no water. And no, quantum mechanics is NOT a good argument. That creationist argument has been totally destroyed.

You know, this entire argument reeks of the notion that since you don't know the facts about something, God supplies the answer. It's a clear-cut case of the God of the Gaps fallacy, and it's infuriating. Stop saying "Goddunit" every time science gives you the answer of "I don't know" instead of making up something to please you.

By claiming that you don't know the answer to something and then saying "God did it" is a total contradiction. You're saying, "I can't explain something, therefore I can explain something." Before you can fill in the gaps and say that God did it, you have to first define what God is and prove that he/she/they exist. When we don't know the answer to something, filling in the blanks with something else that hasn't been proven doesn't solve a damn thing. We may never have an explanation. That's fine. My life isn't going to be destroyed if I don't know every answer to every question. I'm not afraid to say, "I don't know."

No, I do not have the time nor believe it useful enough to read all the resources that are fed to me. You do realize that I can't keep up with all the places I argue at? I have to type these up fast. Anyway, the only explaination is that God doesn't follow the laws He created because He is all-powerful. I don't know how else to explain it. I can't. I am so busy I don't even remember where I'm debating at or with.

EDIT: Misspelled words and realized I wasn't going on the vacation I thought I was. The stupid game was a fraud.

One more thing: Where did the oxygen-less organism come from so the thing could eat it.

One more thing: Where did the oxygen-less organism come from so the thing could eat it.

I never said an organism. I said organic compounds. There's a difference, namely that the latter isn't alive.

As for the origins of these compounds, there are a number of theories. One the most commonly cited is the Miller-Urey experiment (found here: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html ) which synthesized amino acids through the use of electrical charge. This has been critcized by a number of scientists, though, so it doesn't provide definitive proof.

Another theory (which is briefly touched upon in the earlier article) states that these compounds came from extraterrestrial ice and rocks during planetary formation (found here: http://pokey.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/LifeImplications.html ) The basis of this theory stems from the fact that numerous types of organic compounds can be found in deep space, including amino acids. If this theory holds any water, then it is possible for these compounds to have existed from the outset. The planets would have to have been formed from this matter.

No, I do not have the time nor believe it useful enough to read all the resources that are fed to me. You do realize that I can't keep up with all the places I argue at?

*epic facepalm* If you can't keep up with this debate, or be arsed to actually do some decent research, then why are you even debating me? It's like going to a wedding in a T-shirt and jeans because you "don't have time" to iron a suit and take it to the dry cleaners.

And you don't believe it useful to read? You pretty much admitted that your entire argument is rooted in your own ignorance. Yet ANOTHER logical fallacy.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions including language and content must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)