can really science deny the existense of god?
we all see that nature really loves symmetry so the matters really have antimatters but i want all your help to know if we can recreate a universe inside a lab.is it possible to solve the mysteries regarding the creation of universe

Infoshakti asks:
"can really science deny the existense of god?"

Absolutely. And with the same level of authority that we declare the non-existence of invisible purple elephants and the thought that you murdered your father before you were conceived.

"but i want all your help to know if we can recreate a universe inside a lab"

Theoretically perhaps. But as far as we know. We do not have either the knowledge or the technology.

"Is it possible to solve the mysteries regarding the creation of universe"

Absolutely. Though likely the answer will make a lot of people extremely uncomfortable.

Off to Origins?

DA wrote - ?Absolutely. And with the same level of authority that we declare the non-existence of invisible purple elephants and the thought that you murdered your father before you were conceived.?

- The fact that you find God's existence to be philosophically unacceptable on every level does not amount to an authoritative denial.

If you can prove it, then do so and rid the world of religion.

Scripture contains the constant theme that when humanity denies God it aspires to take his place. On the basis that you feel we just need enough knowledge and the right technology and we can create a universe, I would say scripture has you pegged good and proper.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"The fact that you find God's existence to be philosophically unacceptable on every level does not amount to an authoritative denial."

Precisely. The difference between us is the willingness to recognize this fact. Lets see how you respond to the reverse:

""The fact that you find God's existence to be philosophically acceptable on every level does not amount to an authoritative acceptance."

Well Blacknad? Willing to step up to your own falliability on the matter?

While it is impossible to prove that a specific god does not exist it is possible to prove that all advertised gods do not exist as many of them are mutually exclusive. Which, of course, leaves us with the dilema of why your god exists and everyone else's doesn't.

It is also possible to prove that the universe would not be different, in any manner whatsoever, if your god didn't exist. And that by simply pointing out that nothing in the universe violates the known laws of physics. If everything accords with the laws of physics ... then the deity is without purpose save for the actions it has declared publicly to have performed such as flooding the earth and drowning people, bringing plagues upon the innocent, and using blood rites such as crucifixion to make a hopelessly muddled point.

Blacknad wrote:
"Scripture contains the constant theme that when humanity denies God it aspires to take his place."

That is your scripture. That is not the scripture of the Jews or the Moslems or the Buddhists or the that practice Shinto or Animism. Why do you assume that your minority view has more validity than that of the rest of this planet's inhabitants? Are you smart and they are all dumb? Are you enlightened and they are all dupes? But if you look at your sentence with the intelligence I know you have you will detect that it is fatally flawed. It starts with the premise that the god actually exists and that the denial is for a purpose of attaining power. It does not posit the possibility that the deity is a fraud and that those saying so might be pointing out that the emporer is wearing no clothes.

If there is a deity. A deity that has created me to doubt its existence then everyone should be perfectly happy with the current situation.

On the other hand I still want that deity brought to trail for crimes against humanity for the pain, suffering, and death inflicted in its name that it could have prevented. And I want it condemned to death for the wilfull creation of malaria, polio, leukemia, and all other manner of ills it is solely responsible for. Yes. I demand from my god integrity, honesty, and a willingness to fess up to its sins of commission and omission. After all ... I was made in its image.

-----------------------------------------------
"but i want all your help to know if we can recreate a universe inside a lab"

Theoretically perhaps. But as far as we know. We do not have either the knowledge or the technology.
--------------------------------------------------

The Universe without a God has no capacity for thought, so surely knowledge should be no bar to creating a universe, only the knowledge to create the technology.

Ok, listen up you troglodytes. To say that "science isn't all it's cracked up to be" due to human error is a mistake. It's blaming the tool for being misused. Science itself, the scientific process, is an excellent ool for understanding the universe. It's the people that screw it up, every time...

Is it the only tool? No. Religion and philosophy also provide tools, with different perspectives and different results.

There is a common error that occurs in both science and religion. It's called "making the experiment/Holy Reading/argument come out how you want it to instead of how it was really going to". It's cheating, and people do it all the time. I know why people think they can cheat at science, although it never lasts long (repeatability being the big bugaboo); Don't ask me why people think they can cheat at religion, but so many people try. It bogges the mind.

Now, brass tacks: God may or may not exist. And to science, that fact is completely irrelllevant. Gasp! How can you SAY that?

caution: the following is my opinion and not a scientifically provable theory.

Well, because God doesn't reach down and make the bunsen burner turn itself off. If he (she? it? they? who knows?) did, that would be proof of God's existance, and proof negates faith. If you're a believer then faith is the whole point of the game: belief without proof, the ultimate expression of love. So... God's not gonna take that greatest thing away from you. You will never have proof of God's existance beyond what's already here, ie, sunsets, puppies, and ice cream with sprinkles. The universe started as science said it did, with a bang; it was not created mid-stream complete with a planet holding a confusing fossil record just to trick the unfaithful, because that would be a lie - and God does not lie.

The closest you will ever get to God in this universe is to either a) pray and meditate, or b) study the works of God - the universe. Which is the whole basis of science. Not science with a bunch of preconcieved notions about what ought to be - that's pride. But science with humility and a lack of self-intrest; a sense of awe and wonder - oh, wait, I get those anyways every time I think about quantum physics. Science - true, pure science, not that intelligent design spam, not that "because the Bible said so" gibbletts - is a way to look on the mind of God. This universe is a puzzle we have been given the minds to solve. It's an offense not to use them propperly, rationally, and to the best of our ability.


All of which is also irrelevant - because the thing about science is, it works EXACTLY THE SAME if you believe in God or not. Yep. No kiddin. The Atheist, the Buddist, the Catholic and the Shinto all did the same experiment, and guess what! Since they all used the same method with the same stuff, they got the same results!

So God is, in the end, irrellevant to science. God may motivate the scientist; God may determine the morals of the people who decide how the science results should be used. But to science itself? Don't care. Not a useful variable, sorry.

People need to quit trying to make the facts fit their pet theory and just listen to the universe.

y wrote:
"The Universe without a God has no capacity for thought"

And you say this based on what empirical evidence? Have you been in universes where there is no god and found this to be true? Didn't think so.

The invisible purple rhinoceros thanks you for an unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable personal opinion. Not to many of those floating around any more.

Bookwench wrote:
"caution: the following is my opinion and not a scientifically provable theory."

Finally someone with integrity graces SAGG. What a pleasant surprise.

Well put, Bookwench

What on Earth do you mean?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the universe has capacity for thought. How would that aid in its inception? Does a child instinctively know how he/she was made? People have capacity for thought, after all.

Precisely. Science is substrate neutral when it comes to non-scientific notions that a researcher may hold. I may have to give you five stars for this, Bookwench!

Science is the Art of Listening to the Universe.

Science is not the art of interpreting the Universe because it's not finished listening.

Justine wrote:
"Science is not the art of interpreting the Universe because it's not finished listening."

What? Care to say that again only this time with understandable content?

There is truth in what Justine says.

Science does not know enough yet to draw any final conclusions about the 'why' or 'how' of existence.

And science is constantly forced to reorient itself.

Until recently scientists were convinced that most of our DNA was 'junk'. Now we see that most of that non-coding DNA actually serves a purpose.

So Justine is correct - science has not yet finished listening (but it feels sure enough of itself to make some grand pronouncements).

Blacknad.

Bookwench expresses an idea that raises an interesting speculation:
"If you're a believer then faith is the whole point of the game"
Religion is a member of a class of ideas that are
held because they are attractive to, or somehow
benefit the holder.
Such ideas spread; (Grow?), and
change to meet prevalent conditions; (Evolve?),
and produce fusions; (Breed?),
in their growth medium - intelligent minds.
Might such be studied as a new parasitic
or saphrophitic form of life?
They grow, evolve, and breed.
Some are even pathenogenic.
Hmmmmm.
Pragmatist
"I doubt, therefore I might be."

Blacknad wrote:
"Science does not know enough yet to draw any final conclusions about the 'why' or 'how' of existence."

Well duh! ;-)

Neither does anyone else ... but that sure doesn't stop them from pontificating on any and all subjects as long as they refer to their authorless book as the ultimate source of truth.

Dan wrote - "Neither does anyone else ... but that sure doesn't stop them from pontificating on any and all subjects as long as they refer to their authorless book as the ultimate source of truth."

Ah, fair point.

Blacknad.

Score 1 point for sentience. ;-)

Yes, but that is understood. Should we stop attempting to apply models to reality (in the form of hypotheses and theories) because we don't know everything? We'll never know everything.

Other forms of human thought (like, oh... religious thought, for example) boldly jump into the middle of the unknown and refuse to change models when one is shown to be proposterous.

All of science is a work in progress, but that flawed work has achieved some respectable results for humanity. If you want to ignore science until we know everything, then try avoiding the use of any technology that stems from a theory that may not be the final word.

Oh, I didn't notice that there was this second page, and everything I wrote was already covered. Oops.

I was complimenting science when I said it was still listening to the Universe without yet definitive interpretation. I think if we all just kept paying attention to nature and life and the heart and meaning in our lives without labeling the cause...just kept respectfully listening, observing, hypothosizing and appreciating...well, I think the world would be a better place minus the arguments and wars over premature and adamant interpretations.

Justine is absolutely true. i agree with him.
as Einstein quoted once
"if there is no god, it would be neccessary to create one".
the great genius whose contribution to science awarded him a nobel prize, believes in god and science is no exception. Creating another universe is stupid thought because man has no technology or will have any, for all the coming years because so far he has not been able to explore our own galaxy totally and how can he possibly think of creating 'universe'.
This universe is the most amazing thing created by god and replicating his universe by a man is quite impoosible.

rose wrote:
"This universe is the most amazing thing created by god and replicating his universe by a man is quite impoosible."

And your evidence for this is?

Please list the evidence, say the first 5 or 6 items, and for each item tell us how you authenticated the information.

Thanks.

Here's my evidence

what led to the creation of this universe or any heavenly body for that matter, there is no specific answer from any one. It's just natural, and everything natural is god. everything that is law obeying, everything that occurs accordingly, is god.
i think the word nature is not limited to beautiful trees, flowers,hills etc.,
it pertains to everything heavenly.
Some people think that god is someone whose job is to bestow gifts upon them when they are in need of.
He's someone who motivates us to earn the gift naturally with hard work.
In short,i just wanted say that the evidence that god has created this universe is very deep rooted and in depth not every one can see and understand it.
"only the people who believe in god and love"
can see it.
Regards,
Rose.

I don't think it would be ethical to recreate the universe in a lab...and I don't think there would be enough room
Even if a micro cosmic Universe were created...once we created it I doubt we would have much control...it would be under the control of natural forces just like ours is. It would just be a tiny aspect of our greater Universe and not a seperate universe. The closest thing to a seperate universe could only be created in the imagination. I guess there are tons of those on Sci-Fi book shelves.

Dan asked:
"And your evidence for this is?"

Rose wrote:
"what led to the creation of this universe or any heavenly body for that matter,"

Rose ... a question is not an answer. A question is a question. Do you understand the concept of providing supporting evidence?

You have none. You have not a single shred of evidence to support your belief system. Ain't brainwashing a marvelous thing. Everything just gets whiter and duller.

Dan, I don't expect any of this to cut any ice with you whatsoever, and it certainly does not lead us to the Christian God or even monotheism but...

A survey in the journal Nature revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This percentage has been stable over the last 90 years.


Anthony Flew

"Atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3

In Flew?s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, "...it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology and fine tuning arguments.

For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike."


Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

The following are all agnostics - I know anything written by a Christian would be inadmissable.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature?s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall? be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God ? the design argument of Paley ? updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

Agnosticism seems to be a far more honest position than atheism in the face of what we know about the universe.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Even Abiogenesis seems to be fraught with difficulties.

Scientific Facts and Solution

1. Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (1) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). (2)

Solution - reject the second law of thermodynamics


2. In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose (1), the "backbone" of RNA and DNA. "science of the gaps"
Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication (1).

Solution - discard chemistry data
"science of the gaps"

3. Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (1) (i.e., pyrimidine nucleosides don't form in outer space either).

Solution - discard chemistry data
"science of the gaps"

4. Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication (1).

Solution - discard chemistry data
"science of the gaps"

5. - Purine and pyrimidine nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions (3).

solution - discard chemistry data
"science of the gaps"

6. Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes "science of the gaps"
Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes. "science of the gaps"
Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least four billion years (4), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (5).

Solution - discard geological data
discard chemistry data

7. Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations. Adenine deaminates with a half-life of 80 years (at 37?C, pH 7). Therefore, adenine would never accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup." The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup." (6)

Solution - discard chemistry data

8. Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites nor is it produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere." All possible intermediates suffer severe problems (7). Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate) (8).

Solution - discard geological data
discard chemistry data

9. Mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any RNA-like replicator (9). Metabolic replicators suffer from a lack of an ability to evolve, since they do not mutate (10).

Solution - discard chemistry data

10. The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water (11). Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now (12)

Solution - Life arose in freshwater ponds (even though the earth had very little land mass), using some unknown mechanism.

11. Comparison of the dates of meteor impacts on the moon, Mercury, and Mars indicate that at least 30 catastrophic meteor impacts must have occurred on the earth from 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago (13). These impacts were of such large size that the energy released would have vaporized the entirety of the earth's oceans (14), destroying all life.

Solution - Life spontaneously arose by chance at least 30 separate times, each within a period of ~10 million years.


References

1. Orgel, L. 1994. The origin of life on earth. Scientific American. 271 (4) p. 81. (Dr. Orgel is an atheist who has been working on origins of life research for over 30 years.)

2. This argument has nothing to do with the closed/open system question. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. This law also affects the formation of enantiomers in chemical reactions capable of producing stereoisomers. Since the formation of both left- and right-handed enantiomers requires the exact same amount of energy, both enantiomers are produced in identical amounts. Any deviation from this result is highly unlikely (much less likely than the scenario of starting your car on a hot California day and having freeze over while running).
Some researchers have cited the possibility of differential synthesis of one enantiomer over another in the presence of circularly polarized light. There are a couple problems with this theory. First, there is no source of this kind of light in the vicinity of our solar system. Second, the demonstration of circularly polarized light was found only in the infrared region of the spectrum. Light must be of much more energetic wavelengths (ultraviolet). Third, if stereoisomers were formed, the energy of the light would break them down within a short period of time.

3. Orgel, L. 1994. The origin of life on earth. Scientific American. 271 (4) p. 82.

4. Bortman, H. 2001. Life Under Bombardment from the NASA Astrobiology Insititute. - Alternating layers of oxidized iron in the so-called banded iron formation from Akilia Island in West Greenland demonstrates that free oxygen has been present on earth longer than 3.85 billion years.
Dimroth, E. and M. Kimberley. 1970. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161.
Carver, J. H. 1981. Prebiotic atmospheric oxygen levels. Nature 292: 136-138.

5. Schopf, J.W. 1993. Science 260: 640-646.
M. T. Rosing, Science 283, 674 (1999).

6. Shapiro R. 1995. The prebiotic role of adenine: a critical analysis. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 25: 83-98.

7. Cytosine intermediates suffer the following problems:

a. Synthesis based upon cyanoacetylene requires the presence of large amounts of methane and nitrogen, however, it is unlikely that significant amounts of methane were present at the time life originated.

b. Synthesis based upon cyanate is problematical, since it requires concentrations in excess of 1 M (molar). When concentrations of 0.1 M (still unrealistically high) are used, no cytosine is produced.

c. Synthesis based upon cyanoacetaldehyde and urea suffers from the problem of deamination of the cytosine in the presence of high concenrations of urea (low concentrations produce no cytosine). In addition, cyanoacetaldehyde is reactive with a number of prebiotic chemicals, so would never attain reasonable concentrations for the reaction to occur. Even without the presence of other chemicals, cyanoacetaldehyde has a half-life of only 31 years in water.

8. Shapiro, R. 1999. Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA 96: 4396-4401.

9. Shapiro, R. 2000. A replicator was not involved in the origin of life. IUBMB Life 49: 173-176.

10. Monnard, P.-A, C. L. Apel, A. Kanavarioti and D. W. Deamer. 2002. Influence of ionic solutes on self-assembly and polymerization processes related to early forms of life: Implications for a prebiotic aqueous medium. Astrobiology 2:213-219.

11. Szathm?ry, E. 2000. The evolution of replicators. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 355: 1669-1676.
Knauth, L.P. 2000. Life on Land in the Precambrian and the Marine vs. Non-Marine Setting of Early Evolution. First Astrobiology Science Conference, April 3-5, 2000, NASA Ames Research Center, 403 (Abstract 353).

12. Knauth, L.P. 2002. Early Oceans: Cradles of Life or Death Traps? Astrobiology Science Conference 2002, April 7-11, NASA Ames Research Center. p. 9.

13. Chyba, C. and C. Sagan. 1992. Endogenous production, exogenous delivery and impact-shock synthesis of organic molecules: an inventory for the origins of life. Nature 355: 125-132

14. Kerr, R. 1999. Early Life Thrived Despite Earthly Travails. Science 284: 2111-2113. "For its first half-billion years, Earth endured a punishing rain of impacts, which vaporized the oceans and scorched the globe so fiercely that some researchers now propose that life could have first evolved on a more hospitable world, then later hitchhiked to Earth on a meteorite."
"A few of these impactors were probably 500 kilometers in diameter--big enough to create a superheated atmosphere of vaporized rock that would in turn have vaporized the oceans for 2700 years and sterilized even the subsurface, say Sleep and Zahnle."
Sleep, N.H., K.J. Zahnle, J.F. Kasting, and H.J. Morowitz. 1989. Annihilation of ecosystems by large asteroid impacts on the early Earth. Nature 342: 139-142.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"A survey in the journal Nature revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Which all goes to prove that most human and afraid of their own mortality. No surprise. If humans were not hard-wired for "isms" they'd have died out long ago.

To be honest the fact that it is only 40% is amazing given that this country has a fatal attraction with religion. I consider that very good news.

But some of what you quoted is pure nonsense as you have taken phrases like "the mind of god" out of the intended context. Many of my colleagues use phrases such as this to communicate with the lay public and are not personally deists of any colour.

Blacknad ... Your second posting is more evidence of lack of knowledge of science than evidence for the existence of a deity.

Lets take a few for example so as not to use too many electrons:

1. Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur.

This statement is absolutely not true. There is a known mechanism and I posted an article about it here at SAGG within the last 6 months. One possible solution is the selective adsorption of amino acids on calcite. Others involve clay. And there are numerous publications on RNA directed solutions. The point is you are pointing to a place where we don't have "the" answer yet and claiming that god exists in the darkness. The problem, of course, is that with every scientific discovery ... your god has to find a smaller and smaller place to inhabit.


6. Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes

Finding god in the dark spaces again eh. Lets assume that RNA is manufactured in four years without the use of enzymes? Then what? And even if this is true, which it might well be, are you ready to declare it impossible for enzymes to form through natural processes?


7. Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations.

And who defines unreasonable? This is poppycock my friend and you know it. HCN exists everywhere in space. It was one of the first organic compounds discovered in nebulae.


9. Mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite.

One meteorite. One. One out of zillions. And this proves what? That one specific meteorite contained stuff that didn't solve one specific problem. This is grasping for straws. This is desparation at its very worst. Would you be willing, right this second, to swear that god does not need to exist for life to form if I can show you the natural creation of cytosine?

The miracle Blacknad is that any precursors exist in space. 100 years ago your religion denied this was possible.

Oops!
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=438950
You've been lied to.
And lying is a sin.

So I guess #3 bites the dust too.

My point here is that given two hours I could destroy every single claim made above. You don't have evidence of god. You have evidence that science has yet to discover ALL of the answers. That is not the foundation of religion. And you have strong evidence that the source of what you posted has in some cases intentionally lied by omission.

You should be asking yourself ... if truth is on our side ... why is it necessary for the defenders of the faith to be anything less than scrupulously honest?

"It's a very long leap from [mineral] surface chemistry to a living cell." Norman Pace (evolutionary biologist, University of California, Berkeley).


"On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate self-replication." Leslie Orgel, 1998 (The Salk Institute for Biological Studies).


"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible." Leslie Orgel, 1998 (The Salk Institute for Biological Studies).

Blacknad.

Blacknad quoted:
"It's a very long leap from [mineral] surface chemistry to a living cell." Norman Pace (evolutionary biologist, University of California, Berkeley).

So? It is a very long leap from riding a horse to landing on the moon. We also did it in less than 100 years.

Blacknad wrote:
"On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible"

You really must keep up with science news or at least use google.com. Try using google. to look up "Clay and RNA"

Blacknad wrote:
"In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously"

Orgel's opinion is of no consequence. What happened happened and the evidence is found in nebulae, comets, and meteorites. What is worse is his implicit assumption that any organization is required: It is not. For every Orgel who runs off at the mouth ... there are hundreds of experts who would call him a fool for his statement. Myself among them.

Have it your way Dan, but there are many scientists much closer than you to the study of origins who are swayed to the possibility of a universe of design rather than chance.

On what basis do you reject design in favour of chance for the origins of the universe? What evidence do you have that it was chance and definitely not intelligent design?

Your choice is a philosophical one and nothing more.

If not, then what evidence do you have to bolster your position?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"there are many scientists much closer than you to the study of origins who are swayed to the possibility of a universe of design rather than chance."

Only if you research Christian web sites rather than read scientific journals.

Dan,

Rubbish. There are stacks of agnostic non-Christian scientists that are open to a universe by design. You wouldn't go there because you don't like where it might lead. This is the only reason I can think of that you can't even entertain the thought.

Again...

On what basis do you reject design in favour of chance for the origins of the universe? What evidence do you have that it was chance and definitely not intelligent design?

Your choice is a philosophical one and nothing more.

If not, then what evidence do you have to bolster your position?


Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"There are stacks of agnostic non-Christian scientists that are open to a universe by design."

Not my point at all but thank you for doing so well to dodge it.

The point is that the percentage of Americans that believe X, Y or Z is some percentage. The percentage of Americans that are scientists that belive the same rubbish is significantly different. We are better educated and more open minded ... not demigods.

But lets say you can find 10,000 scientists that are willing to accept the Bible as the authentic work of the god of Christianity ... as opposed to the god of Judiasm, Islam, etc. Great. This means precisely what? 10,000 people have established peer reviewed evidence proving the existance of the invisible purple rhinoceros or 10,000 people having received a decent college education were brain-washed as children? or 10,000 people are deists who find themselves going to Christian churches, or 10,000 people have a wide mixture of personal beliefs but find themselves drawn to a similar answer to a simplistic question.

I am often seen at a Lutheran Church at holidays. Does that mean I am there accompanying a friend? As a guest of the minister and his wife who are personal friends? Enjoy the music? Am a devout god-fearing member of the congregation.

Stacks of agnostic non-Christian scientists that are open to a universe by design is a farce given the fact that the Roman Catholic church has denounced ID. Which pretty much puts a wooden stake through the heart of anyone claiming divine revelation of ID.

Blacknad asks:
"On what basis do you reject design in favour of chance for the origins of the universe?"

1. Zero evidence for a designer
2. Nothing that exists requires a designer
3. If he exists designer has proven for the last 2,000 years that he is incapable of doing anything more momentous than making a statue cry or imprinting the Virgin Mary on a street sign.

You see Blacknad it is not for me to prove that your invisible purple rhinoceros does not exist. Rather it is for you to provide evidence of anything that does exist that points specifically to the god of Abraham and Isaac rather than Ganesh or Vishnu. It is up to you to prove that the world is the way it is due to Jesus Christ rather than Mohammed. It is your belief. Surely you have some basis for owning it other than the fact that you used to be screwed up when you were younger and you replaced one vice with another.

Surely!

So are you and Justine suggesting that science stop attempting to model the universe until all the facts are in? Or are the two of you suggesting that the only real science is observation, without forming hypotheses and theories?

If the two of you are saying either, you're wrong.

What I believe Blacknad is saying is that he doesn't have all the answers. That he is insuffiently self-reliant to go about his life without a sense that even if he doesn't ... someone out there does.

And since scientists are honest enough, and have enough integrity to acknowlege that they don't ... he has decided to put his faith in those hypocrites and liars that claim they do.

Look here ... see in this authorless book that has no original untranslated manuscript ... see ... right here it says what happened. It says the god of Abraham created everything ... not a quantum fluctuation, not Vishnu, not the great turtle. And we'll borrow the virgin birth and flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Christmas tree, and a few other trappings of popular mythology so that people will buy our nonsense.

When all is said and done all of the religious people on the planet that still have a brain, like Blacknad, can be frozen in place with just a few simple unanswerable questions. Then they try to change the subject.

1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?

They love to point to the crucifixion but that is evidence of death ... not resurrection and thus of no value. Their "god" had one bad day. The patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Dana Farber, etc. have years of bad days ... each and every one as bad or worse.

Possibly we are dealing with a lack of imagination in the basic idea?

Take a little germ of insignifacance and throw it in the devoid soup. Stir it with graviatation and pop out everything we see here now and what we are likely to see in the future. Athiests want to have a superior being create each atom, and workables and failures. If they did not do it that way they have nothing to argue- not so far from deciteful. Any way I do not believe in a supreme creator. I want to see better ideas of defense from those that do.

So, if there was a creator he did not do the details any more than any originator does- he put the spark in the microb that blossomed into everything else. Please do not let pointless arguments getting you into details that would never exist.
jjw

The better idea is that Creator is you.
Its you who create it all in your consciouness.
Would it be deleted again ?
Truth as simple as that should not be deleted.
The simple brain can make you laugh in pain..all it takes is some chemical or some intelligent wiring of brain... If the perception of pain can be replaced by happiness then why not vice versa.
Neuro Science students can tell you this from simple text books.
Now the question is how much can be created in a life time permanently.
Including response to call for Peace.

Ok jjw004 lets assume you are correct.

1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?

There they are: Deal with them directly siting proof of each of your answers from any source other than an authorless mistranslated book.

Do you have the courage of your convictions or are you just trying to dodge the ball? Let us see.

1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?
Rep: Who , why and what have answers in Science and we can reach to a good conclusion..but are you trying even 1% to understand what we are discussing?We are discussing Everything in totality..and the good part is that there is nothing wrong if understand Self and Universe properly.
Diversity recommends accepting all including its own denial... do you think it can be made possible in the current frame work of yes and no..
There is a chance we have and we are wasting it.

I love Science. I love the explainations for the framework in which my consciousness lives.
I also love that I'm not imprisoned by science nor confined by religion.

I've met Grace in my life. Even through times that have been trying and times that continue to try me. Grace is somehow intangible and works side by side with chance. Whether Grace is The Tao or The Holy Spirit or a figment of my imagination...I enjoy it's presence.

Here's a psychological excersize that I'll put out here...if it's too hokey for you just ignore.

For ten days every morning when you wake up say to yourself, "Something amazing could happen to me today." and then as soon as possible do what you are most afraid of.
Facing false fears is very key.
Don't jump out a window or face a fear that's healthy.
I mean have the conversation you've been putting off. Or take off your watch for the day...whatever. The idea is that Grace is all around us, but we are encapsulated in our fears. And if we open up a little...Grace will come rushing in to meet us.

At this point, I don't think God is a specific entity...I think God is the movement of Grace.
I realize I am spin doctoring the words God and Grace here in hopes you can catch the drift of what I mean.

If you don't like my ideas..that's alright :)I'm just sharing something someone shared with me.

dvk babbled incoherently:
"Rep: Who , why and what have answers in Science and we can reach to a good conclusion..but are you trying even 1% to understand what we are discussing?"

Ok so you have now proven you are incapable of answering six simple questions.

Next!

Justine wrote:
"then as soon as possible do what you are most afraid of.

Facing false fears is very key.

Don't jump out a window or face a fear that's healthy."

I agree that facing fears is important. But equally or more important is knowing you have options.

By definition almost no one will do as you ask ... because everyone defines their fears as being asked to do something unhealthy. If they didn't do that they wouldn't be fearful.

Well I am now taking SAGG out of my favourites and will no longer bother you. It has been a good source of science news and I have learnt much and enjoyed the people here. But I am now getting tired of reading posts and feeling insulted as the thing that is central to my life is trampled underfoot on almost a daily basis.

I think the following was the last straw and if it was intended to hurt and get Christians down then it was certainly successful in my case:

"Evicted, I presume, because god out father was a louse like so many fathers. Always blowing up in a rage, known for violent temper tantrums. Probably also a drunk."


This has nothing to do with reasoned debate.

Goodbye all.

Regards,

Blacknad.

You are right about knowing the options...that is one of the things I see very clearly, now. I can visualize the possible outcomes of my choice in behaviors and then pick the one I want..sometimes being the one I'm most afraid of.

I tried it myself and I think the power of the excersize was in the realization of false fears that before I couldn't even see.

I realized that I was answering to my watch every morning so I stopped using a watch completely; I've still been on time. Oh and just breaking with any part of a routine felt liberating when I did it consciously...sitting outside with a cup of tea for a few moments or just changing up my personal order in getting ready in the morning.
The most powerful false fear was deciding not to fear my mother-in-law anymore. She has an explosive, self-righteous temper to the point that I just wanted to give up on her. That was my first fear that I faced the day I started and something amazing did happen. I asked to have lunch with her and she brought out something for me to read and it was really a gift to be able to read this certain thing that I didn't even know existed.
Oh I also realised that I don't like to disturb people. For example, if I'm walking in a not-too wide walkway and someone is a few yards behind me, if my shoe is untied, I'd prefer to wait until the walkway opens up instead of risking that person has to wait behind me or manuver around me. What is that about? Politeness to the point of invisibility. You know what I mean, silly idosyncradic fears. Why should I fear creating a little disturbance...that just leads to an opputunity of interacting. And interaction is where the "Amazing" happens.
I feel much better since I started this little excersize. It's a great way to wake up, anyway. Just with the reminder that the world is full of possibilities everyday.

Blacknad...seems like you and DA have been having the same conversation for such a long time. I'm glad you have the strength to just let it go.
I hope you find a sense of peace.
Good luck wherever you go and whatever you end up doing with the time you spent, here. You're a good egg maybe we'll see you again, sometime.
Take care,

I think you're being a tad melodramatic, Blacknad. How did you think people would respond to religious reasoning on a science website? I suggest that you take Kate's advice and only respond to posts that you deem worthy of a response.

There was a fascinating discussion over dinner tonight between a couple of us who teach at the university.

Part of the discussion was over the inability of deities, in all theologies, to communicate clearly. Seems to be a universal problem.

Dr. Cline suggested, very simply, that if any deity truly wanted to communicate pre-empting ALL forms of communication on the planet simultaneously ... TV, radio, movies, billboards, newspaper headlines, etc. would be a reasonably simple and effective method. He put forth one of three Boolean possibilities.

1. No deity exists
2. A deity exists but can't do it
3. A deity exists but can't figure out how to do it
4. A deity exists, could do it, but chooses not to commuicate directly

There is no fifth possibility.

True.

2. (in other words) A deity exists, but doesn't work outside of natural law.

3. (in other words) A deity exists, but doesn't communicate through language.

4. (in other words) A deity exists, and supports reality by not taking control.

1. The deity is not a deity as we can comprehend.

Lets get Boolean:

If 2 then the deity, by definition, is not a deity. All deities MUST be capable of the supernatural and all deities defined by human thologies DO work outisde of natural law.

If 3 then all those that have "spoken" with a deity are liars: Inlcuding essentially everyone in all of the theological texts.

If 4 then all of the texts about deities are lying about what the deity has done.

If 1 then there is no point even thinking about said deity as, by definition, we can not comprehend it. In this category, alas, is the invisible purple rhinoceros.

I think we need to examin the words "spoken" and "liars"

If the word spoken could be translated as "communicated" For example, I could say, God spoke to my heart and told me to take a group of multi-disabled people who have HIV to an HIV retreat. I really didn't want to go. But I felt a gut level sensation whenever I thought about the trip that it was something I should do because it would be good for me and for them. We did go and, of course, it was a rewarding experience and all around there were no glitches, everything ran smooothly. I know the people we took had a great time and I have a feeling that if I didn't go..the trip may not have happened. God certainly didn't speak to me in words that I heard with my ears.
It could have been my own subconscious causing the gut feeling. I don't know. And everything went smoothly and I've been on these kinds of trips before and a million things can go wrong, everything from forgetting important supplies, to transportation break downs, to emotions running hot and cold. Everything running like a well oiled machine is kind of rare.
So spoken could be a gut level impression or feeling that is interpreted more clearly by some people and ignored by other people. And in that sense, a deity could be speaking to everybody all the time.

Then the word "liars" seems inappropriate. They could be caught in illusions that they believe. Or they could be very focused on impressions they feel by an entity that is felt through emotions or only understood at the subconscious level. Either way they are telling truths as much as they are aware. There is a possibility that they really are liars, but we can't definitively state that premise as object truth.

But I do see your logic. If we only understand the word "spoken" as words stated by invisible lips in a resounding clear voice that should be heard by anyone standing next to the person who said they heard it, and they are of sound mind....yes then I believe in your logic and what you said is true.

If there is some guiding entity that is beyond my comprehension, that is trying to communicate with us by sending us impressions. It's worth my attention.

It's a sublte operation, in any case.

It is a pleasure to be able to converse on these subjects:

Justine wrote:
If the word spoken could be translated as "communicated" For example, I could say, God spoke to my heart and told me to take a group of multi-disabled people who have HIV to an HIV retreat. I really didn't want to go. But I felt a gut level sensation..."

Good example. So lets take your sentence and substitute "my conscience." Rewrite it as "my conscience spoke to my heart ...." No need to invoke the creator of heaven and heck. Fabricating an invisible purple rhinoceros is not necessary.

Justine wrote:
"Then the word "liars" seems inappropriate. They could be caught in illusions that they believe."

I can not disagree. But lets take this to its logical conclusion. If people act on illusions then they are either (1) hallucinating or (2) in need of treatment of a psychosis. Neither of which, in conventional terms implicates the creator the universe.

So let me rewrite my response taking into account your considerations.

If 2 then the deity, by definition, is not a deity. All deities MUST be capable of the supernatural and all deities defined by human thologies DO work outside of natural law.

If 3 then all those that have "spoken" with a deity are EITHER LYING OR EXPERIENCING A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE: Including essentially everyone in all of the theological texts.

If 4 then all of the texts about deities are lying OR DESCRIBING THE THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES OF SOMEONE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCE WHEN SPEAKING about what the deity has done.

If 1 then there is no point even thinking about said deity as, by definition, we can not comprehend it. In this category, alas, is the invisible purple rhinoceros.

Does that make it better? Perhaps clearer and more inclusive ... but I doubt too many "true believers" would like the concept that they are psychotic and/or hallucinating.

Justine wrote:
"If there is some guiding entity that is beyond my comprehension, that is trying to communicate with us by sending us impressions. It's worth my attention."

Lets assume that this is correct. Now lets return to Genesis 3:3 and consider the text:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

There it is. Looks to me like the guiding entity is capable of clear and concise communication. So my challenge to you is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have a clear communication, and there are many in all theologies and then later claim that this very same entity can't get on TV.
That the entity that created humans and speech is incapable of saying "Stop it now!"

Did Noah have a problem with communication?
How about Moses?
How about ...
You get my point.

I'll grant, as above, they all may have been mentally unfit. But they seemingly had no problem with clear and concise communication.

I understand the gist of what you mean. But there is an amount of illusion we are allowed to have without tilting into psychosis.

I think there is a very very thin line between someone who is clearly in contact with Divinity and someone who has become finatical. Razor thin.

For most of us. It's better not to be in such clear contact. Just clear contact with our own conscience is best and I don't think it hurts to give thanks to the subtle flow of Grace when it weaves into our lives, even if it is uncomprehensible. (or even imaginary to respect your point of view)

Whether I communicate with my own conscience or with some kind of oversoul, or a little of both...I just don't know. Beliefs are hopes. I can hope there is this oversoul guiding me. I'm allowed a little hope (or illusion) without being considered psychotic. Psychosis is more a dysfunctional state of mind rather than an attachement to belief. Psychosis is almost relative to society. In our society, religion and spirituality are allowed.

You don't need the hope of the guiding factor. I think either perspective is fine.

Justine wrote:
"I understand the gist of what you mean. But there is an amount of illusion we are allowed to have without tilting into psychosis."

Again I agree with you. But again I want to challenge you to move past the superficial.

It is perfectly fine for all parents to have the illusion that their children are attractive and intelligent so as to not drown them at birth. That illusion hurts no one and adds to the survival of the species.

But illusions that are used to create rules of ethics and morality. Rules that are turned into laws at least one of which carries the death penalty. Rules that affect a woman's control over her own body? These rise to a different level. I do not want someone deciding, because of an illusion, that I deserve the death penalty for rubbing my nose.

Justine wrote:
"I think there is a very very thin line between someone who is clearly in contact with Divinity and someone who has become finatical. Razor thin."

I think the difference isn't just razor thin ... it is invisible and undefinable. You are welcome to believe you are talking to god right up until you tell me that god wants me to turn down my stereo because it is too loud. Or you get onto television and proclaim the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans was god punishing the people for voting for a democrat or whatever. At that point sane and sentient people need to draw a line between harmess illusion and insanity.

Again ... what you and your conscience or god say to each other is privileged communication and I don't care and neither should anyone else.

The minute you, or anyone else, tries to impose that on me I draw a line in the sand and stand with Washington and Jefferson and a load of buckshot ready to defend my turf. If Christians, Moslems, etc. minded their own business no one would mind theirs.

Yes, I feel the same way and it's true that sane and sentient people need to draw the line between harmless spirituality and malignant spirituality. We need to recognize it in ourselves and in the people around us.

Need for harmless illusion is an interesting subject. Two years ago, I mistakenly explained Santa Claus to my eight year old son. I thought he was ready and we were breaching a topic on truth. Interesting conclusion. My son was angry with me. He decided after knowing the truth that he prefered the illusion of Santa Claus and we had to sort of pretend it never happened. It was like I had robbed him of his innocence.

Your son being angry with you for destroying the illusion is precisely the same reaction you have seen from adults in this forum when I puncture their illusions about their theology.

They all pretty much go through the same phases ending with anger and storming off.

No one wants to find out that the world is precisely what it is ... and that it is up to each individual to make good choices. That no one is going to yank them up by their pony tail and reward them for being decent or excuse them for being a little shop of horrors.

Hi DA: This is your challenge!! ? To an acknowledged Adiest?

Ok jjw004 lets assume you are correct.

1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created Satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?

There they are: Deal with them directly siting proof of each of your answers from any source other than an authorless mistranslated book.

Do you have the courage of your convictions or are you just trying to dodge the ball? Let us see.
-------------------------------------------------
Reply:
I know you are an educator from your past discussions and I know you teach some adult classes at Washington University so I wonder at your idea of a serious question that wants to test me?

All of which you speak are of man?s creation. They are words. I thought that you decided that our present state of being was a favor of Darwin?s evolution. If that is true then we can thank his theory for the answers to your questions. Also I am a little bored with the mystery you see in men?s nipples. Almost all male animals that I know of have nipples, ask Darwin?
So we can say with confidence that mankind or evolution created all the items you list. While some men were busy creating god others were hard at it creating his opponent- Satan. Why is this simple scene so hard for you to accept?

I think that on the religious side you confuse things a little. No one, no theologian or believer, contends there was a virgin birth. The issue is a virgin conception. No women remain a virgin after giving birth. As to the prospect of a virgin woman conceiving and getting pregnant that is documented fact. Rub a Dub of private parts has shown it to have happened. Sperm is relentless at finding its target.

How about the ?resurrection? which you must mean of Christ as some claim occurred following his crucifiction? Do you expect me to offer proof? The sources I have read over the years challenge this idea. Some claim he was not dead in the first place and others argue it was a charade. I need not defend this issue because it is not relevant to your denial of god and it is not in any way important to my keeping an open mind on the issue of a creator. Your questions are not up to your knowledge.
Any way, I was polite.
jjw

jjw wrote:
"All of which you speak are of man?s creation."

No ... not at all. Man did not create the universe: Neither did the god of Abraham/Ibrahim. Man did not create the galaxy: Neither did the god of Moses. Man did not create himself. Neither did Isis.

jjw wrote:
"Also I am a little bored with the mystery you see in men?s nipples. Almost all male animals that I know of have nipples, ask Darwin?"

Me too. But as long as people want to believe in the Easter Bunny an intelligent design they need to explain why the designer gave males nipples.

jjw wrote:
"no theologian or believer, contends there was a virgin birth."

Go to www.google.com

Put in the search criterion: ""Virgin birth" and "Jesus Christ", click on the "Google Search" button with your mouse. Then repeat after me "no theologian or believer, contends there was a virgin birth."

What were you thinking when you wrote that sentence?

jjw wrote:
"How about the ?resurrection? which you must mean of Christ as some claim occurred following his crucifiction? Do you expect me to offer proof?"

No. But I like to see you acknowledge that there is none.

jjw wrote:
"I need not defend this issue because it is not relevant to your denial of god"

You are correct. But it is relevant to whether Jesus Christ was anything more than a nice guy with a bunch of crackpot followers.

Hi DA:

Please try to stay on track. You Said:

Ok jjw004 lets assume you are correct.

1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created Satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?

You never asked who created the universe or who created the galaxy...OR except as above.

If you intended to ask who created the Universe and Galaxies you shoud do it. I have the answer to that question, IT WAS GOD and his name is BIG BANG. Note that is for discussuion only.
JJW

hi i am interested in electrical and electronics applications for spacescience .i am a student of electrical and electronics branch so how can i get a job in space research centers.if any of you brilliant minds can guide me through this i will remain really gateful to you .hope you reply me soon.

infoshakti ... Who the heck do you think you are asking something reasonable in the middle of all of the inanity?

It depends. First are you a permanent resident in any country with a space program? If not you've very few options other than to move to one and become a permanent resident. It might also help to join that country's military and obtain a security clearance.