Existence of God

[MySpaceBarBroke]

You think you live on the peak of innovation? Why don't you drop our good friend Thomas Edison a line and tell him what you think about long lasting light bulbs and efficient electricity distribution.

It doesn't matter what computers do. METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING (DISCLAIMER: THIS IS METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING), you are talking about distance, while I am talking about speed.

 

[kharma]

This thread is going...

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

God hypothetically exists because souls exist > Souls exist because hypothetically, the brain is incapable of holding our minds > It must be souls because we've discovered pretty much anything related in the field of science > We are at the pinnacle because technology is at the peak of innovation > Computers are fancy

Hell, I'm not going to decide how long a chain is to be considered off course.

 

[Hakeem]

No, I do not think this is "the peak of innovation".
But this is getting off topic.

For the purposes of argument, let's say that no evidence will ever be found that explains why anything experiences. Then what of the rest of my logic?

And I didn't say "God hypothetically exists because souls exist".
I've only tried to prove that souls exist. Souls being whatever the mind is beyond this universe.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

No, I do not think this is "the peak of innovation".
But this is getting off topic.

For the purposes of argument, let's say that no evidence will ever be found that explains why anything experiences. Then what of the rest of my logic?

And I didn't say "God hypothetically exists because souls exist".
I've only tried to prove that souls exist. Souls being whatever the mind is beyond this universe.

THEN it would be off topic. Make your own thread about souls.

 

[Hakeem]

It's a starting point for the logic that would follow to god.

And if you don't like that answer, then this is my thread.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

It's a starting point for the logic that would follow to god.

You need metal to make cars. Therefore, when I speak of cars, I mean metal (metaphor alert).

And if you don't like that answer, then this is my thread.

I can sue for false advertising whether the business is theirs or not (Yeah, another metaphor). It's not your forum, is it? Anyhow, discussing this would be even further off topic. Screw debating, I'll go work on my techtree contest.

 

[Infinitynexus]

This thread is just on the verge of fail, but a funny read nonetheless.

I salute you!

 

[Teh_Ephy]

You're as bad a spammer as MSBB or me. At least try to contribute something after the spam so that you can't get in trouble.

Souls are hardly a "starting point" for God. Many religions acknowledge things equivocal to western souls, but not all of them feature divine beings.

 

[Hakeem]

For the logic that I use, it's a start.

Something to note:
I was once afraid of nonexistence. I knew that there was a possibility that there was no god, but I was afraid, so I desperately hoped that god exists.
Since then, I grew to realize what existence is for, and I realized that even nonexistence didn't scare me.
At that point, god was no longer necessary to me. It wouldn't make a difference to me whether or not he existed.
The only reason I believe in god now, is because I have come to that logical conclusion.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Something to note:
I was once afraid of nonexistence.

Cogito Ergo Sum. If you are truly thinking, you have nothing to fear.

I knew that there was a possibility that there was no god, but I was afraid, so I desperately hoped that god exists.

God would not define your existence either way.

Since then, I grew to realize what existence is for, and I realized that even nonexistence didn't scare me.

...

At that point, god was no longer necessary to me. It wouldn't make a difference to me whether or not he existed.
The only reason I believe in god now, is because I have come to that logical conclusion.

We've been waiting 11 pages for this "logical conclusion". Can't you just spill it out?

 

[Hakeem]

Cogito Ergo Sum. If you are truly thinking, you have nothing to fear.

No, I knew I existed, I feared not existing later.

 

[Sesshoku_sendo]

Well my beliefs are kind of funny in this. I happen to buy into the wiccan beliefs more or less

first of all I know we all have souls and you can go to the astral plane while your still alive (astral plane = the spirit world of sorts) but when we die we go there and are stuck there untill reincarnation. The astral plane is everywhere around us and "god" is just a very strong ummm deity.

ummm THE END

 

[TheDivineBoss]

Spacebar's turn.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Spacebar's turn.

I'm not obligated to post in this thread. Debating's getting boring for me, but evidently spamming doesn't have the same effect on you. How about you post here and actually do something other than make things more pointless?

 

[Redeemer59]

I'm not obligated to post in this thread. Debating's getting boring for me, but evidently spamming doesn't have the same effect on you. How about you post here and actually do something other than make things more pointless?

LOL spaecbar i love ur sig ezplosm rocks!!!1

...

'-.-

But yes, it does seem nobody will give any ground whatsoever here. Including me, sadly. Such is the way of debates, people talk, people argue, people raise voices, and nothing is accomplished because we wouldn't be human/humanoid if we didn't experience stubborness.

 

[Hakeem]

I like to think that I got rid of a lot the arguments about god being illogical.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Isn't Wicca's divine being referred to as female (and therefore the goddess)?

"Humanoid" just means the general shape of a human (four legs; stand upright, so the front legs would be arms, head)

Human beliefs change, but after a certain point it takes something very dramatic (traumatic?). Bad example, but take the holocaust: millions of devout Jews walked away from religion, because they didn't believe an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God could let such a thing happen.

 

[Elenai]

And yet...From the evil that was the Holocaust. The Nation Of Israel was re-established in the Holy Land. Where it permenantly resides today.

(an example of God turning terrible evils into great blessings)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I wasn't using the holocaust as an example that God doesn't exist, I used its side-effects as an example that peoples' beliefs can change... and it turns out that it was a bad example. Anyways, let's not discuss the bombshell that is Israel (is its reestablishment a good thing, why can't they just share the space, etc.) and get back on the subject of the existence of God (or whatever else you would like to call your system of belief's divine being/s).

 

[Karzvitch]

Mm. All of you can't prove he doesn't exist, though! ;o

I believe God does exist, even though his existance can't be proven. You don't have to be religious to believe in God, what's wrong with haveing belief in a greater being that is always looking out for you? The only thing I don't agree with is the fact that the religious ways of life are run by ancient manuscripts written by so called 'Prophets'. There's also no proof 'evolution' exists. It's just more logical than something poofing stuff into existance. Overall, I sure as hell don't want to know that after I die i'll just.. Be gone. I like to lessen the thought of death by believing that after I pass away i'll go someplace else.

-Karzvitch

 

[skrab]

hmmm me to believe God does exist.
here read this:

Does Allah Exist?
The Qur'an does not impose faith as an unquestionable dogma; it does not force people to believe without questions. On the contrary, if the slogan in other faiths may be believe and don't think, or if you think you will disbelieve, in the Qur'an the slogan is: you only believe if you think. So to convince us that Allah (the Exalted) is our creator, the Qur'an says:

"We created you. Will you not then believe? Have you seen that which you emit? Is it you who Create it or are we the creator? We destined death among you, and we are not to be outrun, that we may transfigure you and make you what you know not. And you already knew the first creation. Why then don't you reflect? Have you seen that which you plough? Is it you who foster it or are we the fosterer? If we so will, we could make it chaff, then would you continue to exclaim: we are laden with debt! Nay we are deprived!"

"Have you observed water that you drink? Is it you who shed it from the rain-cloud or are we the shedder? If we so will we could make it bitter, why then don't you give thanks? Have you observed fire which you strike out? Was it you who created its tree, or were we the originator? We appointed it as a reminder and an enjoyment for dwellers of the wilderness. Therefore, glorify the name of your lord the tremendous." (56:57-74)

"Verily we created man from a produce of wet earth; then we made him a drop of seed in a safe Lodging; we then fashioned the drop a clot, then we fashioned the clot a chewed lump; then we fashioned the chewed lump into bones; then we clothed the bones with flesh; then we made it as another creation. So blessed be Allah the best of creators!" (23:12-14 )

Once the Qur'an establishes this basic fact of faith namely that Allah is the creator of all things, it moves one step further and states that it is Allah (the Exalted) who causes the death of his creations and it is He who will bring them back to life. In the words of the Qur'an we read:

"...then after that you will surely die. Then on the day of judgment you will be resurrected." (23:15-16 )

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Mm. All of you can't prove he doesn't exist, though!

I believe God does exist, even though his existance can't be proven. You don't have to be religious to believe in God, what's wrong with haveing belief in a greater being that is always looking out for you? The only thing I don't agree with is the fact that the religious ways of life are run by ancient manuscripts written by so called 'Prophets'.

There's nothing wrong with believing or not. The problem comes when people forcefully drag or keep other people in their religious beliefs (including atheism, agnosticism, luciferianism, etc.).

There's also no proof 'evolution' exists. It's just more logical than something poofing stuff into existance.

There's plenty of proof, it's just not enough for evolution to become hard, globally acknowledged fact.

 

[Elenai]

Allah is synonymous of the God of Judaism, as The God of Judaism is one part in the trinity Christians believe in.

Allah is the god of Judaism as percieved by Mohommed. The God of Judaism is the one who came down and gave them the Law. And God is apart(/the) [of] the God-Head (trinity) of the Christians.

And actually Evolution is nigh mathmatically impossible. It is flawed. Not fact. Animals and man adapt, and sometimes adapt in many wierd ways. But they do not "evolve" in the sense of a creature's species becoming another different one. (But perhaps that is for another debate)

 

[skrab]

Allah is synonymous of the God of Judaism, as The God of Judaism is one part in the trinity Christians believe in.

Allah is the god of Judaism as percieved by Mohommed. The God of Judaism is the one who came down and gave them the Law. And God is apart(/the) [of] the God-Head (trinity) of the Christians.

And actually Evolution is nigh mathmatically impossible. It is flawed. Not fact. Animals and man adapt, and sometimes adapt in many wierd ways. But they do not "evolve" in the sense of a creature's species becoming another different one. (But perhaps that is for another debate)

Allah is the standard Arabic word for "God". The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God. Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'. In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.

 

[Elenai]

Indeed. I was merely making a point of comparison.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

And actually Evolution is nigh mathmatically impossible. It is flawed. Not fact. Animals and man adapt, and sometimes adapt in many wierd ways. But they do not "evolve" in the sense of a creature's species becoming another different one.

No, it's not mathematically impossible, neither is it biologically impossible. It's been accepted as a theory that makes sense, and puntil we find a better one, or the right one, it's the most possible option. You have evidence of evolution everywhere, and denying it is just being retarded.

Evolution is a quiet thing, it takes years and years and years to make a difference, and even then it will be very small. So you'll never live it, only have the trace of it.

At a certain point, you have to admit it just makes SOOOO much more sense than other theories.

And if it WAS impossible, then scientists, researchers, and experts (ones with at least 50 times more knowledge than you or any of us) would not have accepted it. Of course, it's not fact yet, but it's a VERY possible possibility.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

And actually Evolution is nigh mathmatically impossible. It is flawed. Not fact. Animals and man adapt, and sometimes adapt in many wierd ways. But they do not "evolve" in the sense of a creature's species becoming another different one. (But perhaps that is for another debate)

Evolution is a blanket term for both the accidental adaptation due to flaws in the copying of DNA and development of new species. Yes, it's unlikely that a whole species may emerge from another one, but there is still the minute chance.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Actually, a new species doesn't just emerge from another one. It changes slightly every thousands of years and eventually it's changed enough to be a whole other species.

Saying a fish eventually turned into a giant diplodocus makes sense, when you realise it went through millions of different stages.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The difference between species is the inability for individuals of the separate species to mate with one another and successfully produce offspring. It's extremely unlikely that enough of the "new" species will have received the defect [that makes it unable to mate with the old species] that the new species will be able to survive. I'm not denying the chance, but it's a damn small one, even if it happens a lot.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Over a few million years, I think the event will happen pretty often anyway.

 

[Elenai]

Evolution's very existence depends on several pillars.

1: Carbon dating time.
2: The diversity of genes, and Natural Selection.
3: The fossil record.

These are the three I have looked at so far.

1st: carbon dating is not accurate on once living tissue. Carbon dating relies on the accurate measure of the decay of carbon 14 in fossils, corpses, ect.

But It is highly inaccurate. Carbon 14 first of all only measures back around a maximum of 10,000 years. Not the billions/millions of years claimed to be measured.

Carbon 14 decays at a non constant rate. Its like trying to read a clock that is constantly switching speed. And as less and less carbon 14 is left it decays (I believe it decays faster, I'm not sure though).

It is also assumed that the fossil when it was born (alive) it was made up entirely of Carbon 14, If it was it would be radioactive and most likley not have been born at all, nor any thing made up entirely of Carbon 14 for that matter.

Thats one pillar collapsed. 1 assumption in mathmatics makes the problem nearly unbelievable, 3 makes it impossible. Carbon 14 is the clock of Evolution. But it's measurement of time is incredibly unreliable.

2nd: The gene pool: The genomes of Humans, apes, turtles, worms, ect. Have thousands of genes. And Evolution says that over billions of years the genes of Species A's genes mutated (good/helpful survival mutations) within many many generations into Species B. But as we know today most mutations are usually very bad, like the ones that cause cancer. Even over billions of years and generations upon generations of natural selection and random diversity those genes would have to have to mutate beneficial mutations for at atleast 60% of the genome without carrying the recesive mutations along with it for most of the evolution process. The probability of generations of radical beneficial mutations over any legnth of time is ENORMOUSLY unlikley. And not only that Carbon 14 dating is so unreliable for fossil dating, that the billions of years for those generations to mutate....are just not there. These fossils we are dating are not accurately measured.

One example would be the flu virus (while it isnt technically living, we will look at it's DNA) The Influenza virus goes through many mutations becoming different strains about every month-year. And yet after the hundreds of years the flu has been around....it is still the flu.

Thats another pillar down.

3rd: The fossil record: I love fossils and all that. When I look at dinosaurs and early reptiles I see animals like the Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, Struthiomimus, Hypsolophodon, ect. I only see the bones of those animals, or their cousins. You do not see transitions in the fossil record.

When you look at the fossil record its like seeing a snap shot book. You see Species D, similar to Species C. But you dont see the fossil record like a video. Showing a species "grow up" so to speak. You see snap shots of different breeds of the same general species template.

Its like the modern dog. Today you see all kinds of breeds. Hundreds of breeds most look very different. Dalmations and little chihuahuas look really different. But they are still Canine familaris. With wolves as the common anscestor. But those breeds were made by human manipulation of breeding choices and ect over many years. But they still remain dogs. They have not become.....something else. (this also goes with the genome example, the mutations in the genes are not all good. Many dogs contain prominant genes for things like blindness, deafness, ect.)

Thats the third main pillar down.

3 inaccuracies making this theory incredibly flawed.

Now while species do adapt. And some adapt radically like dogs. And like humans are adapting now. Species do not evolve into other species. They simply adapt into other breeds. Perhaps more advanced breeds that look different.

Sorry the post is messy. But Its a little difficult to lay out in a summary what should be in a book.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

About pillar two, the "bad" gene mutations would just die out because of natural selection, no?

Besides, I still think that over years and years the species changed SO much they just became incredibly different.

It's like the "cavemen", you can't deny that they changed, a lot. And are now extremely different. And that was only a few millions of years. Imagine billions of years.

 

[Hakeem]

First: Carbon dating is very reliable.
"Carbon 14 decays at a non constant rate."
It decays at a rate, that while not linear, is very, very, very, easy to read.
"It is also assumed that the fossil when it was born (alive) it was made up entirely of Carbon 14"
Wrong. When it dies, it has equal amounts of Carbon-12 as Carbon-14. Over time it decays, compare the amounts of Carbon-12 to Carbon-14 and you get a very precise measurement of when the organism died.

Second: Take 2 animals that reproduce using sperm and eggs. They, by random happenstance, have mutations that gives them better eyesight. This improved eyesight helps them catch food better, resulting in longer lives. They live longer than most others in their species and, as a result, have more children. And what do these children inherit? Better eyesight. Meanwhile, the siblings of these 2 animals had mutations that made them die at birth. Good mutations, however rare, result in many more children than bad mutations.
Keep in mind, that animals have children very, very, very, often. Multiply that by billions of years and you have the makings of billions upon billions of mutations.
And lets not forget the story of the peppered moth. It had genes to have both black and white children.
When the white ones could blend in and the black ones could not, the white ones flourished.
When the black ones could blend in and the white ones could not, the black ones flourished.
On top of that, humans can speed up evolution by constantly breeding the characteristics we want. Take broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and the wild mustard we bred them from.

Third: A video is made up of snapshots. There are so many fossils that we can make a video.

Most importantly: This is off topic.

 

[Elenai]

Yet the other two pillars Carbon Dating, and the Fossil record are against it. The billions of years are discredited by the inaccuracies in C14 dating. And the Fossil record shows only snap shots of ape men and then Shows primitive man-Modern man. No transitions, and no missing link.

And while it is true that a species can adapt so much it becomes different. It still remains basically an exotic breed of the mother species. Like a wierd looking dog is to a wolf.

Carbon 14 still cannot be measured back to the billions of years claimed. And it is still unreliable because of its non constant rates of decay.

But I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

The missing link is still "missing", so that's what,s stopping Evolution to be REALLY fact.

 

[Elenai]

That and the unreliable dating system, the missing links for most if not all species fossil records, and enormous genetic improbability.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Still, it's a lot more plausible than creationism or other theories, and when you look at it globally, it would make sense...

But yes, it's still unproven.

 

[Elenai]

Unproven, yes. More plausible, perhaps. But Creationism has not been unproven either.

In my personal belief I think its a little of both.

God makes basic species. Species spread about, species adapt (But not as radically as evolution claims, IE: make new species or lizards become mammals) But adapt none the less.

Good night everyone see you all tomorrow.

 

[Hakeem]

Carbon dating is by no means unpredictable.
The time spans measured are very accurate.
That's fact.

Once again: this is off topic.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Once again: this is off topic.

Indeed. Carbon dating does not disprove god, nor does evolution. "BUT IT DISPROVES MAH RELIGION" doesn't cut it.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I have several problems with the above arguments. First, life has been around for hundreds of millions of years, not billions. Second First, carbon dating is pretty damn accurate in the scope of the universe, even the planet (so within tens of thousands, maybe thousands of years). Third Second, about different species: if you actually just look at tissues and stuff, it's pretty hard to tell one species from another. It's a lot more plausible than you think, even if it isn't the easiest idea to swallow.

The biggest problem with creationism is that its been succeeded by intelligent design; creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. "The universe and everything in it" doesn't describe what was in the universe when it was created, so the big bang could be how God did it (assuming that God exists, created the universe, etc.).

About the fossil record, yeah. You can see fossils that look a lot alike, have been carbon dated as millions of years apart and DNA tested to be related but different species, and it could be either proof or coincidence.

 

[Hakeem]

Oldest fossils: 3.5 billion years.

 

[donut3.5]

True Ele, it could be a mix, God invented the single celled, then that evolved, however while it wouldn't be contradictory to a God, it would still be contradictory to the beliefs of most Christians.
--donut3.5--

 

[Massive_attack]

Who the f*ck cares, let people believe what they want. I know im going to die, while i cant say where, i hope it is a place of my choosing. After that who knows, its nice to think that i might regain conciousness, and enter a "heaven" like place, but if i dont, then thats fine too. If i never regain conciousness when i die, i will be comforted (if i still have cognitive abilities) that many have fallen before me, and that it is part of human nature to die. Every begining must have an end, to avoid it or think about avoiding it is just silly. Acceptance of death is the first step on the road to living freely, with that much less fear. And if there is someone watching over us, then good, it is nice to know someone is cataloging and watching us all, it makes our silly small lives seem relevant, that something somewhere acknowledges our time here on this small speck of dust. Ignorance is bliss, gentlemen(and women), revel in it.

Thats all i have to say.

 

[Elenai]

Carbon dating is solved by a mathmatical formula as you know (I wont insult your intelligence). And that formula relies on 3 assumptions to make it work. In mathmatics using 3 assumptions to solve a definate formula to find a definate solution, is impossible, makes the answer incorrect, and makes it unbelievable.

Carbon dating is not accurate.

Not only that Evolution is not scientifically supported by evidence or facts.

It is not supported by the Law set down by Pasteur, "all life comes from life"

Evolution is also filled with grave defects.

Evolution is also not supported by probability. If Evolution is only done by natural selection and only natural phenomenon, then it is nigh impossible for Evolution to have occured.

The very probability of amino acids, (that make protiens essential for life) forming randomly from hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulphur, and nitrogen in the natural environment are [100 multiplied by itself 160 times : to 1] And the probability of those acids aligning perfectly (as even one amino acid misplaced life is impossible) is [1 in a 10 to the 240th power probability].

It would take a miracle for that to happen.

Evolution is not backed by the Carbon 14 dating system, or mathmatics itself. Neither is it backed by the precedent laws of nature set down by the fathers of modern science and it's applications like biology, physics, and ect.

Evolution is psuedo science.

The point I am also getting at is that while God could have (for the sake of considering Donut's proposal) invented the single cell. It would not have evolved. And even so God's word denies evolution. For if (again for the sake of considering) God did exist. His word would be true. And his word says he made us. Not made one cell and let it loose to become the other animals.

Believe what you will. But know this. Evolution is a pseudo scientific hypothosis, not backed up by natural evidence.

 

[donut3.5]

As I said, (or should have if I didn't), God doesn't have to be the one we know him as, as the Christian one who says he created man.

What if God's a big chicken? THEN WHAT?

For all we know, (which is very little), God could have created anything and could be anything.
--donut3.5--

 

[Hakeem]

Carbon dating is solved by a mathmatical formula as you know (I wont insult your intelligence). And that formula relies on 3 assumptions to make it work. In mathmatics using 3 assumptions to solve a definate formula to find a definate solution, is impossible, makes the answer incorrect, and makes it unbelievable.

False.

Carbon dating is not accurate.

False.

Not only that Evolution is not scientifically supported by evidence or facts.

False.

It is not supported by the Law set down by Pasteur, "all life comes from life"

Not entirely true.

Evolution is also filled with grave defects.

False.

Evolution is also not supported by probability. If Evolution is only done by natural selection and only natural phenomenon, then it is nigh impossible for Evolution to have occured.

False.

The very probability of amino acids, (that make protiens essential for life) forming randomly from hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulphur, and nitrogen in the natural environment are [100 multiplied by itself 160 times : to 1] And the probability of those acids aligning perfectly (as even one amino acid misplaced life is impossible) is [1 in a 10 to the 240th power probability].

It would take a miracle for that to happen.

That's not how life formed. There is a very good theory for how the first life happened. And it isn't against odds.

Evolution is not backed by the Carbon 14 dating system, or mathmatics itself. Neither is it backed by the precedent laws of nature set down by the fathers of modern science and it's applications like biology, physics, and ect.

False.

Evolution is psuedo science.

False.

The point I am also getting at is that while God could have (for the sake of considering Donut's proposal) invented the single cell. It would not have evolved. And even so God's word denies evolution. For if (again for the sake of considering) God did exist. His word would be true. And his word says he made us. Not made one cell and let it loose to become the other animals.

That's what your bible says. Mine says otherwise. This thread is not about Christianity.

You don't actually know anything very accurate about evolution.

 

[donut3.5]

The very probability of amino acids, (that make protiens essential for life) forming randomly from hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulphur, and nitrogen in the natural environment are [100 multiplied by itself 160 times : to 1] And the probability of those acids aligning perfectly (as even one amino acid misplaced life is impossible) is [1 in a 10 to the 240th power probability].

Actually I hadn't noticed this. the arguement against this is it was rare, thus it took billions of years. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were our genes.
--donut3.5--

 

[Elenai]

Hakeem: I know alot about Evolution my friend. And all my above statements are indeed true. Perhaps you should re study Evolution yourself. And not deem it totally as fact. Look at its mistakes, there are many. Enough to disprove it.

The existence of God is'nt just about Christianity, yes that is true. It also involves Islam, and Judaism. For "God" is the god of those religions. And to ask the question of his existence is to delve deep into the fundemental beliefs that the three share incommon. The prime one being that God does exist.

So inshort while this thread is not just about Christianity. It is 1/3 of it atleast. But from what I've seen, there is neither Muslim, nor Hebrew here to support God's side of the story. So as a Christian I will use what I know to support God's side of the debate. Even if I have to bear the weight alone.

Donut: Even with billions of years, those odds are still so incredible it would take a miracle for it to occur. But in Evolution miracles dont exist.

The possibility of one amino acid forming that way are so large it has to be written in multi digit standard notation (we will call it "A"). The possibilty of many amino acids forming is "A" multiplied by many more (we will call that "B"). The probability of "B" forming together perfectly is 1 in 10 to the 240 (we will call that "C"). For "C" to become the THOUSANDS of genes in even the simplest organism is just enourmously ENOURMOUSLY improbable. Evolution is so improbable that it is as close to impossible as you can get.