[QUOTE="famicommander"] the lack of evidence for something does not necessarily point to its non-existence.Deity_Slapper

Actually, logically - it has to be that way. I have no clue where this "absence of proof is not proof of absence" idea came from. If there's no proof for something, it doesn't exist. At least we have to assume it doesn't exist, until evidence appears. Otherwise, we could just make up a whole bunch of crap in our imaginations and say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence! Woo hoo!" It's just ridiculous.

[QUOTE="elmo90"]The point is that the belief in God explains the creation of life, whereas evolution makes no attempt to. Any learned atheist will agree with that statement. Deity_Slapper

I'm an atheist, and I do not agree with that. Belief in god does not explain the creation of life. Belief in god gives the believers something to lean on in the midst of their ignorance concerning what is actually responsible for our existence. It's a security blanket; an imaginary friend.

explanation
n.

1. The act or process of explaining: launched into a detailed explanation.
2. Something that explains: That was supposedly the explanation for their misdeeds.
3. A mutual clarification of misunderstandings; a reconciliation.

It may be your opinion that God does not exist. Fine. But the belief that He does exist still falls under the ****fication of an explanation.

[QUOTE="elmo90"]I was showing the contrast between the two viewpoints. Why don't you actually read my post instead of taking a part of it out of context.Deity_Slapper

I read the whole thing. It's just that most of it was full of your opinions, which you're obviously allowed to have, that's why i didn't quote the rest. I only quoted the part where you made an absolute statement which just happened to be incorrect.

But as I re-read your post, I also noticed that you said you believe god created the world. Now, tell me how you know this to be true. Just cause a book said it? Because you were taught it in sunday school? I mean, do you have your own evidence to pull from?

And no, it wasn't incorrect. An explanation doesn't have to be true, which makes theories explanations. The point is that the belief in God explains the creation of life, whereas evolution makes no attempt to. Any learned atheist will agree with that statement.

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"]

MrGeezer is right. Saying some almighty dude created it is ludicrous.

The Origin of Life made easy

xxDustmanxx

I completely agree.Anyone who immediately claims that a deity did it simply because we dont know all the answers yet, or dont understand the science are thinking through flawed logic.

Holy ****.

Read. My. Original. Post.

I'm convinced that Famicommander is the only one who's done that.

[QUOTE="elmo90"]

My question is this. Since most Atheists here will not accept something without evidence, can one of you provide evidence that it is possible for lifeless matter or energy to produce life? Has this ever been observed on a molecular level? Where does self-creating life stand in accordance to the scientific method?

I've included a poll just to see where some of you stand.

MrGeezer

That's what you call a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE. To say that science can't explain it means that god did it is a trivialization of YOUR GOD. The very KIND of god that you believe in is now a "god of the gaps", whose sole power lies in a scientific explanation never being found. Now you're talking about freaking Zeus, who sits in the sky making thunder by banging on a big freaking drum.

And that's why so many theists oppose scientific progress. Because they KNOW that they believe in a god of the gaps, and that their god gets weaker with every new scientific discovery that is made.

Dude, you clearly said,

[QUOTE="elmo90"]

God explains the origin of life, while evolution does not. Deity_Slapper

That is absolutely incorrect. How an unproven being explains anything is beyond me. I don't know where you guys come up with this stuff sometimes. Too much TV? I don't know...

Kids these days... :lol:

God doesn't explain a damn thing. It doesn't explain the origin of life, it doesn't explain why the sun is hot, it doesn't explain why water falls out of the frigging sky, and it doesn't explain the process of nuclear fission.

God is ONLY an explanation if you can A) prove that god exists and B) Explain the MECHANISM by how God did whatever the hell we're iving god credit for doing.

If you can't explain HOW god did it, then saying "god did it" DOES NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING. It's that simple.

MrGeezer

everything that our bodies are made of occurs naturally within this universe. as evolution teaches us, to start small is the key. 1 cell developing into multiple and so forth. there need not be a higher power to move this along. it has happened naturally for a billion years. deathtoallgods

You completely missed my question; I could tell that when you said "move along". I'm talking about the origin of life, not the progression of it.

These two are not at all the same thing. It just so happens that most Atheists are evolutionists, since most of the scientific community supports the theory.

I am a Christian, and more than that I would call myself a Theistic Evolutionist. A thus, since I believe in God, and that He created everything, I must also be a Creationist. The problem with the term here is that most people take Creationism to mean a literal 6-day creation, instead of a figurative 6-day creation. For that reason, I'm more quick to say I believe in Intelligent Design than Creationism.

The point is, evolution and creation are not opposites, and do not conflict with eachother. The reason many Atheists choose to believe that they do is because they wish to invalidate God in any way possible. The two aren't in the same category because God explains the origin of life, while evolution does not. Evolution only explains a gradual change in life after it originated. Thus, an atheist must believe that life originated from non-life by some form of reaction of chemicals or other substances, which produced life.

My question is this. Since most Atheists here will not accept something without evidence, can one of you provide evidence that it is possible for lifeless matter or energy to produce life? Has this ever been observed on a molecular level? Where does self-creating life stand in accordance to the scientific method?

I've included a poll just to see where some of you stand.