• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence God Is

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Are you not placing your faith in men and their educated guesses?
No one has seen an eye evolve, have they? Are you not having faith in what you haven't seen, nor can see.
Looking also at the fact that the complexity of life, was seen from the very start, is a headache as to how complex life evolved. Of course, they seek to fix these with their various theories. They always do.

_________________________________________________________________________
How did complex life evolve?
Scientists have long pondered the question of how simple “prokaryotic” cells, like bacteria, which are little more than a membrane-bound sack, evolved into more complex eukaryotic cells, which contain numerous internal membrane compartments.

Why complex life probably evolved only once
The universe may be teeming with simple cells like bacteria, but more complex life – including intelligent life – is probably very rare. That is the conclusion of a radical rethink of what it took for complex life to evolve here on Earth.

It suggests that complex alien life-forms could only evolve if an event that happened just once in Earth’s history was repeated somewhere else.

All animals, plants and fungi evolved from one ancestor, the first ever complex, or “eukaryotic”, cell. This common ancestor had itself evolved from simple bacteria, but it has long been a mystery why this seems to have happened only once: bacteria, after all, have been around for billions of years.


There are so many baffling questions for the naturalist that it calls for one who refuses to acknowledge the designer of life, needs to put faith in educated guesses
An age old question? Or has it already been answered?
How Did Life Arise on Earth?
...some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet's environment was stable enough to support it.
The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Greenland that are about 3.7 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex - they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier. In fact, there are hints of life in even more primeval rocks: 4.1-billion-year-old zircons from Western Australia contain high amounts of a form of carbon typically used in biological processes. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]

...scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.
"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.

The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe.

Lots of ideas
Today, there are several competing theories for how life arose on Earth. Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid. Some even say life might have arisen here more than once.

"There may have been several origins," said David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "We usually make 'origins' plural just to indicate that we don't necessarily claim there was just a single origin, but just an origin that didn't happen to get blasted by giant [asteroid] impacts."

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. According to this "RNA World" hypothesis, RNA was the crux molecule for primitive life and only took a backseat when DNA and proteins - which perform their jobs much more efficiently than RNA - developed.

"A lot of the most clever and most talented people in my field have accepted that the RNA World was not just possible, but probable," Deamer said.
RNA is very similar to DNA, and today carries out numerous important functions in each of our cells, including acting as a transitional-molecule between DNA and protein synthesis, and functioning as an on-and-off switch for some genes. [Extreme Life on Earth: 8 Bizarre Creatures]

But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.


[Despite clear evidence of design, requiring a designer, many put faith in their theories.]

The anthropic principle
But "astronomical" is a relative term. In his book, The God Delusion, biologist Richard Dawkins entertains another possibility, inspired by work in astronomy and physics.
Suppose, Dawkins says, the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.
Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it's nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.
As Dawkins writes, "There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack."


Shapiro doesn't think it's necessary to invoke multiple universes or life-laden comets crashing into ancient Earth. Instead, he thinks life started with molecules that were smaller and less complex than RNA, which performed simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules.
"If you fall back to a simpler theory, the odds aren't astronomical anymore," Shapiro told Live Science.

Trying to recreate an event that happened billions of years ago is a daunting task, but many scientists believe that, like the emergence of life itself, it is still possible.
"The solution of a mystery of this magnitude is totally unpredictable," said Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University in New Jersey. "It might happen next week or it might take a thousand years."

Editor's Note: This article was first published in 2007. Tia Ghose contributed updates to this report.
______________________________________________________________________________

@viole, and Cacotopia... So what are you guys trying to say, that your faith is better?
Consider the OP.
The definition for design is clear to see - no need to read between the lines.
All life on earth fit into the definition of design. Therefore all life on earth was designed, and thus has a designer.

This explanation for the complex life forms on earth, is simple - no rocket science needed.

Doesn't that make my faith sound?
Psalm 100:3 Know that Jehovah is God. He is the one who made us...

We do not have faith. We have evidence. These are two completely different things.

And we generally all agree. You do not even manage to agree between Allah, Jesus, Apollo, Kali, the great Juju or Whomever your fantasy makes up. Which is quite embarassing. Or it should be to the rational mind.

Ciao

- viole
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
We are a bad design.
I both acknowledged your opinion, and responded to it.

What is the reason that a large proportion of the population suffer from bad backs? Is that all part of god's plan? What is the purpose of the bad backs?
Why do you consider it a bad back? That means you must know what a good back is, right? Or do you have a problem with all backs period? See here.

My knees are knackered, I'm having new ones, so in some respects I am having 'god's parts' replaced with human ones. Not exactly a guinea pig as others have gone before.
Thousands of centuries may have passed but we can only do knee operations in the last 20-years or so.
Don't you mean your knees are damaged?
Which means that there are knees that are undamaged right?
Then why do you refer to your knees, as God's knees? Your'e funny. Got any more jokes.

I said nothing about your god dying; I just said if he was the designer, he wasn't very good. I don't want to punish them BUT if they were any good they'd update the design.
I understand. I was just saying that when something leaves the manufacturer, it's not his responsibility to follow you home, and correct every mistake you make on his product. ;)

@j1i that's funny.
You are missing a few things though.
Your box needs to have the right environment - temperature, etc.
You need millions of years, and you need to melt and refine the objects to their purest properties.
After those millions of years, open it, and you may be surprised. :D
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I didn't draw any conclusion about any deity based on life's complex design.
We recognize its design - I'm glad we agree on that. :)
So we realize then, there is a designer.
Whoever or whatever that designer is for you is fine by me.
I just pointed to what the most ancient text on the designer proclaimed.
I happen to believe what this ancient text says, because on close examination of it, it appears to be sound.
Romans 1:18-23 says, 18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.
Yeah that pretty much sums up the truth to me.

The Bible says that Jehovah God did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying you with food and filling your hearts with gladness. (Acts 14:17)
We see that don't we? At least, that's what I see.

My main point though was, that there is design in creation.
Who, or whatever is the designer, each one will make up their mind what they believe.
However, if the Bible is true... that would be Jehovah God - which I believe.

Hey @Hockeycowboy, thanks. ;)


I don't know another way to phrase it but how did you come to the conclusion a designer created creation?

Call me silly, but I see a pattern but never associated it with a creator or designer or however termed. I don't know if it's innate for people to do that or just trust what's written, I dont know.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The conclusion is not “God” the conclusion is “an intelligent designer” (that may or may not be God)

If you go to another planet and find “some stuff” what method would you use to determine if it was designed?


I don't have innate reason to assign creator to a designer however termed. I have seizures and they aren't designed. Cancer isn't. Many illnesses arnt. We, as people, see patterns in things. That's how human brain makes sense of things. If we are already introduced to something, say letters and language if a word is off we can't read our brains try to match to make sense of former knowledge.

Nature in and of itself is not designed. It would be perfect but that term by itself is defined by humans. Creation just is.

I mean, people are still studying trying to find an innate god gene. We try to make sense of things but facts don't always align with our conclusions.

Edited.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
We do not have faith.
Yes you do.

We have evidence.
Which is? Educated assumptions.
The jellyfish’s stripes
These muscle-related proteins are probably involved in cell motility ...“This specific form of myosin was previously known only from true muscle cells, and was assumed to have originated during muscle evolution,” says Technau. “But it probably evolved long before the first multicellular animals arose.”
The new findings suggest that this myosin form, and other primordial muscle proteins, provided the basis for the evolution of muscles.

I could find millions of these for you, but I'm sure you wouldn't want me wasting my time trying to shake your faith.

These are two completely different things.
You'll have to know how you see faith and evidence.
I don't see faith as not holding to evidence.

And we generally all agree. You do not even manage to agree between Allah, Jesus, Apollo, Kali, the great Juju or Whomever your fantasy makes up. Which is quite embarassing. Or it should be to the rational mind.

Ciao

- viole
Multiverse, Supersymmetry..
I know why you would like that to be true, but it's not reality.
We live in a world where disagreement reside in numbers, and the scientific community is not exempt.
I'm sure you don't want me to pull up the hundreds of documents on where scientist do not agree.
Actually, if you read my post, you would see one. ;)

Speaking of fantasy, how does something designed exist without a designer?
Oh right. Your make-believe common ancestors.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I don't know another way to phrase it but how did you come to the conclusion a designer created creation?

Call me silly, but I see a pattern but never associated it with a creator or designer or however termed. I don't know if it's innate for people to do that or just trust what's written, I dont know.
Did you read through the OP?
Please tell me what you understand from it.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The way our body functions, gives evidence of purposeful design.
There are specification of a finished product, and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed.
There are building blocks assembled according to "blueprints".
I asked how did you draw that conclusion.

I don't have an innate feeling there is a design. Like I said, I see a pattern but that's all I know.

Was it innate?
Did it come only by reading scripture first?

I can't agree with you about the OP cause I see no designer...maybe go a bit deeper in how creation has a creator beyond us trying to figure it out by looking at the body (which isn't designed, given seizures and cancers)

Understand?
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Yes you do.


Which is? Educated assumptions.
The jellyfish’s stripes
These muscle-related proteins are probably involved in cell motility ...“This specific form of myosin was previously known only from true muscle cells, and was assumed to have originated during muscle evolution,” says Technau. “But it probably evolved long before the first multicellular animals arose.”
The new findings suggest that this myosin form, and other primordial muscle proteins, provided the basis for the evolution of muscles.

I could find millions of these for you, but I'm sure you wouldn't want me wasting my time trying to shake your faith.


You'll have to know how you see faith and evidence.
I don't see faith as not holding to evidence.


Multiverse, Supersymmetry..
I know why you would like that to be true, but it's not reality.
We live in a world where disagreement reside in numbers, and the scientific community is not exempt.
I'm sure you don't want me to pull up the hundreds of documents on where scientist do not agree.
Actually, if you read my post, you would see one. ;)

Speaking of fantasy, how does something designed exist without a designer?
Oh right. Your make-believe common ancestors.

We all agree that all the things you are mentioning are the product of evolution by natural selection and common descent. Since a long time. That has not changed much, I am afraid. And that is exactly the mechanism, we agree upon, that gives the illusion of design. It is actually a very simple one.

And honestly, I would not put research in multiverses, supersymmetries and string theory, on the same level with beliefs in Jesus vs. Apollo. Lol. That would be like putting them on the same level of Mickey Mouse vs. Pinocchio.

Besides, you must believe in the existence of something that has no designer, as well.

That is what your belief, in Jesus or whomever, compels you to do.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

W3bcrowf3r

Active Member
How did you draw conclusion of a deitt based on lifes complex design? and how, within the design, does it point tp the christian god?

I have done research to Islam and the Quran, Christianity and the Gospel, Judaism and the Tora, and came to the conclusion they are all inspired by the same God, but that doesn't mean that what Muslims, Christians and Jews do is always correct. I am also learning Arabic, Greek and Hebrew, and i have found a lot of errors in translations which explains everything!

Now i am doing research about Hinduism and the Vedas.

PS: Don't judge a Book by it's followers.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I have done research to Islam and the Quran, Christianity and the Gospel, Judaism and the Tora, and came to the conclusion they are all inspired by the same God, but that doesn't mean that what Muslims, Christians and Jews do is always correct. I am also learning Arabic, Greek and Hebrew, and i have found a lot of errors in translations which explains everything!

Now i am doing research about Hinduism and the Vedas.

PS: Don't judge a Book by it's followers.

How did you draw conclusions yourself?

I believe in rebirth because not only did I read it in the Dharma and it made sense, but I experience rebirth on my actions. So, observation and putting things together and a whole lot of practice let me understand it.

Books and studies are cool, but by no means the same as experience.

So how did you draw the conclusion?

My question doesn't assume you guys are dumb and ignorant. It's as is.
 

W3bcrowf3r

Active Member
How did you draw conclusions yourself?

I believe in rebirth because not only did I read it in the Dharma and it made sense, but I experience rebirth on my actions. So, observation and putting things together and a whole lot of practice let me understand it.

Books and studies are cool, but by no means the same as experience.

So how did you draw the conclusion?

My question doesn't assume you guys are dumb and ignorant. It's as is.

I don't know if the Vedas really teach a lasting cycle of rebirth, or if they mention just 1 cycle of rebirth.

Conclusions? I have read the Quran, Gospel and Tora, and they are inspired by the same God, the one and only God, YHVH, your God and my God, our God, the God of all. I read the Books themselves, and i am learning their original language.

You questioned if the design of the universe pointed to the 'Christian' God. My answer is, there is only one God, and He is the Author of both the Quran, Gospel and the Tora.

My only question is, what about the Vedas, it can't be that Hinduism doesn't have an Inspired Book received from God? God send Messengers to different Nations. Every Nation has it's Messenger. But i have to learn Sanskrit before i can read the original Vedas. I am not going to base my understanding of the Vedas on translations, and i am avoiding the denominations of course.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,"
.
Reference would be helpful.

If "complexity = design", what then do we conclude about this?

Malaria_LifeCycle_1.gif


The life cycle of the plasmodium parasite (causes malaria) is extremely complex. So are we forced to conclude that it was specifically "designed" by God to infect and kill humans?

Now watch every creationist here completely ignore this.
Isaiah 11:9 says, "...the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah..."
"Will be", implying it isn't, now.

Do you understand that? Do you know why it's not happening now? Meditating on and studying Genesis 3 explains the reason.

Yes, it is designed. Originally it posed no danger for humans.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I asked how did you draw that conclusion.

I don't have an innate feeling there is a design. Like I said, I see a pattern but that's all I know.

Was it innate?
Did it come only by reading scripture first?

I can't agree with you about the OP cause I see no designer...maybe go a bit deeper in how creation has a creator beyond us trying to figure it out by looking at the body (which isn't designed, given seizures and cancers)

Understand?
Okay good. What is design?

We all agree that all the things you are mentioning are the product of evolution by natural selection and common descent. Since a long time. That has not changed much, I am afraid. And that is exactly the mechanism, we agree upon, that gives the illusion of design. It is actually a very simple one.

And honestly, I would not put research in multiverses, supersymmetries and string theory, on the same level with beliefs in Jesus vs. Apollo. Lol. That would be like putting them on the same level of Mickey Mouse vs. Pinocchio.

Besides, you must believe in the existence of something that has no designer, as well.

That is what your belief, in Jesus or whomever, compels you to do.

Ciao

- viole
No, we don't all agree. Is that hard for you to believe.
If you are saying that you believe in design that has no designer, then it is not design.
Therefore, can you explain why there is construction, and functioning components, leading to a specified objective, or goal.

Natural selection does not account for the design. It does not, for example,address the function of reproduction, for it itself is not the construction, function, or goal, of the property.

It is rather a process that can be altered by various factors.
Those factors exist separately from natural selection.
Actually, natural selection would not exist, were there no design.

No design. No natural selection.
So back to point A we go. Design exists because there is a designer.

Who designed the first cause?
That argument, always seems to come up, where no other exists.
I suppose it sounds better that saying, processes got in motion without a mover.
So just imagine, everything is motionless, and then BOOM! something moves - no life, no intelligence, nothing.
Or maybe... there was life. ;)
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Now i am doing research about Hinduism and the Vedas.

PS: Don't judge a Book by it's followers.
Good point.
Of course that would mean they are not followers, because they are not following the book. ;)
It's like, you brought this really sophisticated device, and you run through the manual, without taking careful note, and following the instructions, but decide to incorporate your own knowledge - not considering that your knowledge on other devices may not apply to this particular device,
That person isn't following the manual, are they?
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Evolution of the first nervous systems – what can we surmise?
Nervous systems are exceedingly complex: it has been determined that as much as 70% of an animal’s genome is expressed in a single nerve cell......

Our understanding of neurobiology, as a whole, has advanced enormously over the past 50 or so years, but the evolutionary origins of nervous systems, and questions such as ‘when did nervous systems first appear?’, ‘what was the selective pressure that drove what is an exceedingly complex and energetically expensive trait?’ and ‘did that indeed happen multiple times?’ have barely been addressed. .......

The recently completed genomes of the ctenophores Mnemiopsis leidyi and Pleurobrachia bachei have radically altered our understanding of early metazoan phylogeny and, most notably, the origin of nervous systems.

Searching for the origin of muscles
Scientists have addressed the origin of musculature. A new analysis reveals for the first time that some central components of muscles of higher animals are much older than previously assumed. These results indicate that muscle-like cell contraction originated already very early during animal evolution, while the specialization of basal muscle cell types, such as striated muscles, occurred only later and several times independently.

Jellyfish occupy a special phylogenetic position to understand the evolution of muscles. They are cnidarians, an animal group that originated more than 600 million years ago, and possess striated muscles. Due to the striking similarities between striated muscles of vertebrates and jellyfish, it was so far assumed both striated muscle types share a common origin. In fact, jellyfish striated muscles also express the ancient "muscle myosin," but they lack several essential components that are characteristic for the structure and function of striated muscles of "higher animals."

This indicates that despite their striking similarities, striated muscles of jellyfish and "higher animals" have evolved independently. This study sheds light onto how seemingly complex biological structures, such as striated muscles, could have evolved independently based on very ancient components.

Evolution of muscles
Fit as a sponge
Sponges - a very old evolutionary lineage - lack true muscles but still have some proteins typically found in muscle cells. These new findings suggest that the origins of musculature lie much further back in time than suspected.

Neurons are not just for thinking. With the evolution of neuromuscular systems, animals acquired the capacity for articulated movement, allowing them to develop complex patterns of behavior. The structure and function of vertebrate striated muscle, which can be contracted at will, has been studied in detail, but its evolutionary history remains obscure. New results reveal that central elements of skeletal muscles evolved surprisingly early, in animal forms that are not normally regarded as being very athletic.

The blood vascular system first appeared probably in an ancestor of the triploblasts over 600 million years ago, overcoming the time-distance constraints of diffusion, while endothelium evolved in an ancestral vertebrate some 540–510 million years ago.

Birds, mammals, and crocodilians show complete separation of the heart into two pumps, for a total of four heart chambers; it is thought that the four-chambered heart of birds and crocodilians evolved independently from that of mammals.

No circulatory system
Circulatory systems are absent in some animals, including flatworms. Their body cavity has no lining or enclosed fluid. Instead a muscular pharynx leads to an extensively branched digestive system that facilitates direct diffusion of nutrients to all cells. The flatworm's dorso-ventrally flattened body shape also restricts the distance of any cell from the digestive system or the exterior of the organism. Oxygen can diffuse from the surrounding water into the cells, and carbon dioxide can diffuse out. Consequently, every cell is able to obtain nutrients, water and oxygen without the need of a transport system.

Some animals, such as jellyfish, have more extensive branching from their gastrovascular cavity (which functions as both a place of digestion and a form of circulation), this branching allows for bodily fluids to reach the outer layers, since the digestion begins in the inner layers.

Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium
There is no trace of the cardiovascular system in the fossil record. Molecular phylogenetic analyses have yielded interesting, though limited insights into evolutionarily conserved mechanisms of heart development and tube formation. By contrast, comparative biology provides a rich source of information that can be used to infer and reconstruct the evolutionary history of the cardiovascular system.

The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell
Quote:
"Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . . . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . . . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?"

An egg from a woman’s ovaries cannot produce life on its own. For this to happen, a sperm cell from the male reproductive system must combine with the nucleus of the egg.
What does the sperm do to make the egg develop?

Differently shaped cells begin to form - nerve cells, muscle cells, skin cells, and all the other types that make up the human body.

Science Digest
Quote:
"No one knows for sure, why certain cells aggregate to form a kidney while others join to form a liver, and so on."

Eventually, the human body reaches full growth, being made up of some 100,000,000,000,000 cells.
What causes the cells to stop dividing at just the right time and why?


OMG OMG OMG Npeace what the fU^k?That video said humans are different from other forms of life because we have brains and are intelligent!
Npeace you don't believe animals don't have brains and are not intelligent and have no nervous system r
OMG that is unbelievable!
Go tell a veterinarian you don't believe animals have brains and nervous systems see what they say!
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
OMG OMG OMG OMG Npeace what the fU^k?That video said humans are different from other forms of life because we have brains and are intelligent?
Npeace you believe animals don't have brains and are not intelligent and have no nervous system really?

OMG that is the most ignorant video I have ever seen. My dog Venus and my cat Cali are way smarter then you! They have brains and are very intelligent. Go take a biography class !
Hellooooooooo Riders.
I'm glad you took the time to look at the videos. I hope you liked them... Well maybe you didn't like the one that you misunderstood.
Quote
"What makes this organ unique, is that within it lies the ability for humans to know oneself. This feature [the ability for humans to know oneself] distinguishes, and sets the human species apart from the rest of creation. [Including plants ]" End quote.

Thanks for the laugh though.
Hope you enjoy the other videos. They are really nice. :)
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Hellooooooooo Riders.
I'm glad you took the time to look at the videos. I hope you liked them... Well maybe you didn't like the one that you misunderstood.
Quote
"What makes this organ unique, is that within it lies the ability for humans to know oneself. This feature [the ability for humans to know oneself] distinguishes, and sets the human species apart from the rest of creation. [Including plants ]" End quote.

Thanks for the laugh though.
Hope you enjoy the other videos. They are really nice. :)




Animals know themselves where did that come from?We are apes and I know myself. We are animal.:rolleyes:
 
Top