State YOUR worldviews

[D-bol]

If you are saying that things like diff. species, vision, emotions and a sense of right and wrong etc. can be explained by probability and random process then, no I must not be very familiar w/them.

Do you have a link to which you can direct me so I can learn a bit more please?

not by random processes in anyway better that by theological ones (which you, as far as I understand, uphold)

[Eyeball Chambers]

Did God play any role in the world being formed?  God is everything and all that is, and maybe even all that isn't, if such a thing is possible. 

That's what I believe.

[Butterbean]

totally different, we know how amino acids replicate, the intimacy with DNA, enzymes etc... theories are collections of facts. These theories are tested and whatever the outcome is accepted. Faith has no evidence, self replicating molecules are fact.

Have you seen them replicate?

[Butterbean]

If having one's life positively changed due to Christianity is evidence of Christianity, How is having one's live positively changed due to Islam or Buddhism not evidence for those belief systems?

You'd probably have to add the other things I said as evidence for me.  I suppose someone who joins a cult that worships a comet may feel their lives have positively changed.

Didn't Jesus say that a man's faith is justified by the works that he does and not his faith alone?

James 2:24; Rom. 3:20, Matt. 5:16, James 2:22

No.  Of the above, the only scripture in which Jesus is speaking is Matt 5:16 which says:

"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

...doesn't say anything about being justified by works.

Why believe that it was sitting around for billions of years before he put life on it or before he put humans on it? What biblical passage supports this idea?

Why not?  It is a possibility isn't it?   Are you saying it's not a possibility?  I don't know a passage that supports the idea other than the one we were talking about in the first place that didn't commit either way.

Yes, but obviously the genetic diversity added by sexual reproduction outweighed the disadvantage of the possibility of not finding a mate. Though, in almost all species, there is an abundance of possible mates, but only those most fit or appealing tend to mate, which is natural selection.

Do you feel genetic diversity couldn't have "happened" w/o 2 beings needed for reproduction?  If so, why?

This doesn't mean that it was actually sitting around for that long.

And it doesn't mean it wasn't it either 

No. Various observations tell us what did exist right after the big bang, which elements, etc. It would not have been possible for amino acids to form until the necessary elements had formed. This means it happened after the big bang. Not faith, reason.

liberalismo, did you make these various observations yourself or did you learn about them from another party?

 

Plus, did you know that light travels at a certain speed? It takes a certain amount of time for light across the universe to reach us here on earth. This means that some light traveling to us here on earth is billions of years old, some of it is actually as old as the universe. This means that what we see at the farthest reaches of the universe ARE the lights created during or right after the big bang.

Yes I realize light travels at a certain speed.  I don't know much about some light we see being lights created during the big bang but I've heard that stated before.  Do you have a good link on that?

I really don't. It would depend on how you define "faith", for instance some definitions have it as simply "belief", but I do NOT believe in things that I can't prove to be true or have no evidence are true, even a little evidence.

Of course I see what you are saying here but my point is that you have faith or belief that what you have learned from third parties as possibly true.  Is there a viewable, provable math equation that proves macro evolution is true? 

The problem with your statement: People don't need to directly see something to know that it happened. If this were true then forensic people or CSI would never be able to prove anything.

If I see footprints leading in the mud, do I need to see the person as they make them to assume that a person made these footprints?

You can't always be so sure when assuming things

[D-bol]

So the complex chains of amino acids were created at the big bang?

What caused the big bang?

STella, nothing "caused" big bang...I know its hard to comprehend by our human way of thinking, but life is NOT an multiple chain of causes and effect, despite of the common perception that it is.

David Hume in the 18th century proved that we can actually never infer a causal relationship - it is impossible. What we can infer, from multiple observations, is that one event is usually followed by the other, and that we can, therefore expect the latter to occur in some fashion whenever we observe the former. But that still doesn't mean the latter is causes by the former, and it is possible (although improbable) that some day one will occur by itself, not followed by the other.

This is where all religions make a fundamental mistake, thinking in teleological manner - everything has to have a cause and divine purpose.

[liberalismo]

You'd probably have to add the other things I said as evidence for me.  I suppose someone who joins a cult that worships a comet may feel their lives have positively changed.

Sure. This is why having one's life positively changed due to religion isn't evidence for that religion, or belief.

What other evidence did you list? I can't find it. Was revelation one of them, or something? Prophecy perhaps? Please clarify.

No.  Of the above, the only scripture in which Jesus is speaking is Matt 5:16 which says:

"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

...doesn't say anything about being justified by works.

So it's only legitimate if Jesus is saying it himself? Is this your view of the New Testament? Anything stated in the bible or by the authors of the gospels of other people is invalid?

Why not?  It is a possibility isn't it?   Are you saying it's not a possibility?  I don't know a passage that supports the idea other than the one we were talking about in the first place that didn't commit either way.

Why not? Well, Is there a good reason to? Is it biblical?

Do you feel genetic diversity couldn't have "happened" w/o 2 beings needed for reproduction?  If so, why?

Yes. Random mutations occur even in asexual reproduction, and those mutations can produce change in the genetics which results in more genetic diversity.

And it doesn't mean it wasn't it either 

Well, Was it or wasn't it? Do you really know? If you don't know, why believe one way or the other? What reason is there? What justification?

liberalismo, did you make these various observations yourself or did you learn about them from another party?

Both. I usually rely on the published and peer reviewed observations of other people for most of my knowledge of science.

Yes I realize light travels at a certain speed.  I don't know much about some light we see being lights created during the big bang but I've heard that stated before.  Do you have a good link on that?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/11feb_map.htm

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Of course I see what you are saying here but my point is that you have faith or belief that what you have learned from third parties as possibly true.  Is there a viewable, provable math equation that proves macro evolution is true? 

Again, it depends on how you define "faith". If "faith" is defined as a belief without evidence, then I have none of that. Even if I learn things from other people who have studied or observed certain things, their published peer reviewed and repeatable observations are evidence enough.

Is there a math equation proving macro evolution? I doubt it. Evolution is a biological phenomena which really can't be "proven" by math. Evolution is proven via biological means though. Humans have parts of their genetic code which originated from retro-viruses. These retro-viruses each have specific genetic features, and when inside of an animal, they add themselves to the genetic code of the offspring. Humans and other primates have the exact same retro-viruses on the exact same genetic locations, which would be totally impossible unless they both shared a common ancestor which was infected by the virus. This is just one single example of how macro-evolution is totally true and proven, there are many others though.

You can't always be so sure when assuming things

Well, replace "assume" with "conclude". Either way, You don't need to see something as it happens to find evidence later on that it happened. You can prove that something happened at some time in the past based purely on the evidence that is left over today.

[freespirit]

what?

no of course not. Nothing has never existed, something has always existed this is based on logic Why is this based on logic?. However religious people beleive something can come from nothing, that the universe was just created by god, whole. Bang, magic.

You don't get it, do you. It's atheists who are the ones who think that the universe was created out of nothing. First, according to atheists, there was nothing, and on a certain moment, bang, the universe was created and began to expand. Just by sheer accident. What a coincidence, isn't it? Atheists mistake logic for fantasy.

[D-bol]

You don't get it, do you. It's atheists who are the ones who think that the universe was created out of nothing. First, according to atheists, there was nothing, and on a certain moment, bang, the universe was created and began to expand. Just by sheer accident. What a coincidence, isn't it? Atheists mistake logic for fantasy.

please explain to me (logically) how the explanation that the world was created out of nothing for no reason is in anyway more absurd than an explanation that a divine spirit created the world out of his(its) own Will?