Evidence for God from Science

If there's a quote hell, I think it's this thread.

Come on people. Use proper quotes in your posts.

[quote="abelcainsbrother"

You've got your evolution blinders on.Take them off so you can see more clearly.Because if I had them on I wouldn't be able to see the fossils that shows the much different life that lived in the former world The only way you can prove me wrong is to show how they prove they were evolving and you cannot do it.I just removed fossils from you,you cannot use them for evidence for evolution now. They had nothing to do with Noah's flood too.

You still need to come to grips with the fact that polar ice proves there was no flood. Thus not gap.

I think overall it is kind of cool that you want to try to figure things out, and
do understand the idea of "deep time". Also, that you see as is so plainly the case, that life in the past and life today are not the same. You went off track in saying that it was "totally different", but perhaps that was just a way of speaking.

Regarding the fossil record, I am really kind of astonished that you have not
taken the little time needed to look up what the fossil record actually shows about life in the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Caroniferous etc.

Try it!

Like this..Cambrian https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 8b7d93.jpg

Devonian
https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/facul ... dev04b.gif

on land..http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/im ... 5_devo.jpg

Carboniferous forest// http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_map3r ... 1_1280.jpg

And so on. Quite-though not totally- different from eachother and from today.

You see clearly the differences from one era to another. Not just two "worlds-
"Previous world" and "present". There is far more to it than that. As even a cursory examination of life forms from different eras will show. Many "previous worlds". It is a very complex picture with lots of overlap, not consistent with any simple explanations.

Then too, there is the persistence of many life forms through the ages, up to the present. Some with very little evident change, others with the most obvious series of changes over perhaps tens of millions of years, then going extinct, or persisting to this day.

There is so much more to the story than you've so far looked into, and it is so much more interesting than any simplified version!

You are off to a good start, seeing that no 6000 yr history of earth could possibly account for the data.

I kind of hope you will just spend some more time in study, and hold back on
your conclusions until you have more of the picture.

We all have some times to give up cherished notions

One of the greatest breakthroughs is what one of my professors told me,
and it is to find the point where you are delighted, excited to find out you were wrong about something.

If someone could prove that ToE is wrong, it would be the most exciting thing
I ever heard or am likely to hear!

RickD wrote:If there's a quote hell, I think it's this thread.

Come on people. Use proper quotes in your posts.

Oh, you are just being sensitive.

Katabole wrote:The point I was trying to get across is that it is not mathematically impossible for life to occur randomly without a Creator or creative force. It is however, mathematically improbable for life to occur randomly without a Creator or creative force.

This is far from indisputable. I have tried to track down the source for the "1:1 X 10^40000" and other numbers, that are often quoted as having been formulated by a Prof. Vikram Singh of Cardiff University. I cannot find any reference to this man, either on the Cardiff University website, which has complete lists of its senior staff, or any mathematical papers attributed to him on Google scholar. Have you a reference to his calculations?

Anyway, there are about 100 billion galaxies, each with about 100 billion stars, each of which is, of course, a solar system. Of the tiny number of these we have been able to study, about half a dozen earth-like, possibly habitable planets have already ben discovered, and some estimates claim there may be as many as 10 billion of them in the Milky Way alone. It may turn out that, given 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 planets and 10 000 000 000 years, the random coherence of amino acids into self-replicating molecules, and the development of reproducing cells, is not only probable, but almost inevitable.

As to the chance that a Universe can support life, there is no evidence that ours is unusual - it's the only one we know. What's more, although it is a truism that the universe is suitable for life as we know it, we do not know that other configurations might not be equally suitable for another kind of life, even intelligent life. It is nonsense to suppose that a Universe that supports life must be rare; after all, intelligent life is common to 100% of all the universes we know!

Audie wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Katabole wrote:
Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

Loved the clip in the doco where theres a cartoon of dawkins trying to do the slot machines with these kind of probabilities. damn it! c'mon mother nature! then continues to kick the machine

The whole film does have a cartoonish aspect to it, for sure.

Did you watch it?

as much of it as it took to get the idea. so I take it back, I cannot say the "whole" film.

have you read any critique of it?

Here is some discussion of the "odds" argument.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

May I predict your response?

I still don't understand though how you get life from non life. The absolute complexities of a single cell which darwin himself seem to not be aware of. Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

Audie wrote:

[quote="abelcainsbrother"

You've got your evolution blinders on.Take them off so you can see more clearly.Because if I had them on I wouldn't be able to see the fossils that shows the much different life that lived in the former world The only way you can prove me wrong is to show how they prove they were evolving and you cannot do it.I just removed fossils from you,you cannot use them for evidence for evolution now. They had nothing to do with Noah's flood too.

You still need to come to grips with the fact that polar ice proves there was no flood. Thus not gap.

I think overall it is kind of cool that you want to try to figure things out, and
do understand the idea of "deep time". Also, that you see as is so plainly the case, that life in the past and life today are not the same. You went off track in saying that it was "totally different", but perhaps that was just a way of speaking.

Regarding the fossil record, I am really kind of astonished that you have not
taken the little time needed to look up what the fossil record actually shows about life in the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Caroniferous etc.

Try it!

Like this..Cambrian https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 8b7d93.jpg

Devonian
https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/facul ... dev04b.gif

on land..http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/im ... 5_devo.jpg

Carboniferous forest// http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_map3r ... 1_1280.jpg

And so on. Quite-though not totally- different from eachother and from today.

You see clearly the differences from one era to another. Not just two "worlds-
"Previous world" and "present". There is far more to it than that. As even a cursory examination of life forms from different eras will show. Many "previous worlds". It is a very complex picture with lots of overlap, not consistent with any simple explanations.

Then too, there is the persistence of many life forms through the ages, up to the present. Some with very little evident change, others with the most obvious series of changes over perhaps tens of millions of years, then going extinct, or persisting to this day.

There is so much more to the story than you've so far looked into, and it is so much more interesting than any simplified version!

You are off to a good start, seeing that no 6000 yr history of earth could possibly account for the data.

I kind of hope you will just spend some more time in study, and hold back on
your conclusions until you have more of the picture.

We all have some times to give up cherished notions

One of the greatest breakthroughs is what one of my professors told me,
and it is to find the point where you are delighted, excited to find out you were wrong about something.

If someone could prove that ToE is wrong, it would be the most exciting thing
I ever heard or am likely to hear!

How can you say that polar ice proves there was no flood? We have dust in the ice sheets that shows a world wide drought that just so happens to coralate to the time of Noah's flood within the margin of error about 4300 years ago. Also dealing how old the polar ice is,how would you detect a flood which was a one year event? It would be like searching for a needle in a hay stack.Very difficult to do.But I'm not saying it can be proven,I mean,what can be proven as far as the past? But my evidence for a global flood is world wide dust that science has detected.They are not looking at it from a flood view point though,but I am. I see science has detected dust in the polar ice,in the sea,etc that shows a world wide drought that dates to the time of Noah's flood.Now whether or not you think it had something to do with a flood ,I doubt but the bottom line is there was a drought that happened at the time of Noah's flood,so something happened and I believe it has to do with Noah's flood.

But yes,I do like to figure things out.And yes I do see that the earth is old and yes I see that life in the past and life today are not the same.You seem to think though that it was not totally different and I'm not sure that we agree on this point because I do see totally different kind of life and not just with animals but also plant life also.I'm not sure this is much of a sticking point though so I can agree it was not the same.I can go with that.

I have looked up the fossils in the different layers of strata but I never memorized their names except for the Cambrian,but I've heard about the Cambrian explosion,so it is easy to remember.But I have taken the time to look at many different kind of fossils and I am aware that there are gaps in the fossil record.However IMO from the research I've done these gaps hurt evolution more than it would my theory.This is why I think you can see many different worlds but this hurts evolution more than it would the Gap Theory because of time,however I realize evolutionists,just forged ahead with punctuated equilibrium to speed things up when they realized this problem. Also my theory might be simple to you,but I think evolutionists complicate everything by imaging life evolves,especially when looking at fossils.In order to look at a fossil and claim it shows somehow this life was evolving just complicates what the fossil really and simply tells us.

Yes I will continue to spend more time in study as I know my weaknesses and strengths,still what I do know I know well but I'm not technical.I tend to keep thinks simple because it is easier for people to understand.To some it makes it seem like you don't know as much as you do,but it can be deceiving.A lot of times people just impress with all of these big words,but I prefer to keep it simple.

And I am willing to change if I realize somewhere I was wrong.However most people IMO have a hard time changing their mind,especially if its something they've invested a lot of time in.Kind of like a person who gets involved with a cult and they spend years dedicating their life to it,only to one day wake up and realize it is bad and they need to give it up and they change their mind about it and find a way out of it. Thanks for the chat and as far as I could tell a nicer tone than usual.

I think for you to convince me to accept evolution,like you.I would need you to give evidence and reasons you are convinced it is true according to science.I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss it.I would like to know what evidence convinces you it is right though because although it seems like a mountain of evidence as far as I can tell it lacks too much in very important ways,where it matters.

From my research I believe evolution creates a very big credibility problem and I expect better from science.

If there's a quote hell, I think it's this thread.

Come on people. Use proper quotes in your posts.

Phil especially loves to do the above..

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

[quote="abelcainsbrother"

You've got your evolution blinders on.Take them off so you can see more clearly.Because if I had them on I wouldn't be able to see the fossils that shows the much different life that lived in the former world The only way you can prove me wrong is to show how they prove they were evolving and you cannot do it.I just removed fossils from you,you cannot use them for evidence for evolution now. They had nothing to do with Noah's flood too.

You still need to come to grips with the fact that polar ice proves there was no flood. Thus not gap.

I think overall it is kind of cool that you want to try to figure things out, and
do understand the idea of "deep time". Also, that you see as is so plainly the case, that life in the past and life today are not the same. You went off track in saying that it was "totally different", but perhaps that was just a way of speaking.

Regarding the fossil record, I am really kind of astonished that you have not
taken the little time needed to look up what the fossil record actually shows about life in the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Caroniferous etc.

Try it!

Like this..Cambrian https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 8b7d93.jpg

Devonian
https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/facul ... dev04b.gif

on land..http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/im ... 5_devo.jpg

Carboniferous forest// http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_map3r ... 1_1280.jpg

And so on. Quite-though not totally- different from eachother and from today.

You see clearly the differences from one era to another. Not just two "worlds-
"Previous world" and "present". There is far more to it than that. As even a cursory examination of life forms from different eras will show. Many "previous worlds". It is a very complex picture with lots of overlap, not consistent with any simple explanations.

Then too, there is the persistence of many life forms through the ages, up to the present. Some with very little evident change, others with the most obvious series of changes over perhaps tens of millions of years, then going extinct, or persisting to this day.

There is so much more to the story than you've so far looked into, and it is so much more interesting than any simplified version!

You are off to a good start, seeing that no 6000 yr history of earth could possibly account for the data.

I kind of hope you will just spend some more time in study, and hold back on
your conclusions until you have more of the picture.

We all have some times to give up cherished notions

One of the greatest breakthroughs is what one of my professors told me,
and it is to find the point where you are delighted, excited to find out you were wrong about something.

If someone could prove that ToE is wrong, it would be the most exciting thing
I ever heard or am likely to hear!

How can you say that polar ice proves there was no flood? We have dust in the ice sheets that shows a world wide drought that just so happens to coralate to the time of Noah's flood within the margin of error about 4300 years ago. Also dealing how old the polar ice is,how would you detect a flood which was a one year event? It would be like searching for a needle in a hay stack.Very difficult to do.But I'm not saying it can be proven,I mean,what can be proven as far as the past? But my evidence for a global flood is world wide dust that science has detected.They are not looking at it from a flood view point though,but I am. I see science has detected dust in the polar ice,in the sea,etc that shows a world wide drought that dates to the time of Noah's flood.Now whether or not you think it had something to do with a flood ,I doubt but the bottom line is there was a drought that happened at the time of Noah's flood,so something happened and I believe it has to do with Noah's flood.

But yes,I do like to figure things out.And yes I do see that the earth is old and yes I see that life in the past and life today are not the same.You seem to think though that it was not totally different and I'm not sure that we agree on this point because I do see totally different kind of life and not just with animals but also plant life also.I'm not sure this is much of a sticking point though so I can agree it was not the same.I can go with that.

I have looked up the fossils in the different layers of strata but I never memorized their names except for the Cambrian,but I've heard about the Cambrian explosion,so it is easy to remember.But I have taken the time to look at many different kind of fossils and I am aware that there are gaps in the fossil record.However IMO from the research I've done these gaps hurt evolution more than it would my theory.This is why I think you can see many different worlds but this hurts evolution more than it would the Gap Theory because of time,however I realize evolutionists,just forged ahead with punctuated equilibrium to speed things up when they realized this problem. Also my theory might be simple to you,but I think evolutionists complicate everything by imaging life evolves,especially when looking at fossils.In order to look at a fossil and claim it shows somehow this life was evolving just complicates what the fossil really and simply tells us.

Yes I will continue to spend more time in study as I know my weaknesses and strengths,still what I do know I know well but I'm not technical.I tend to keep thinks simple because it is easier for people to understand.To some it makes it seem like you don't know as much as you do,but it can be deceiving.A lot of times people just impress with all of these big words,but I prefer to keep it simple.

And I am willing to change if I realize somewhere I was wrong.However most people IMO have a hard time changing their mind,especially if its something they've invested a lot of time in.Kind of like a person who gets involved with a cult and they spend years dedicating their life to it,only to one day wake up and realize it is bad and they need to give it up and they change their mind about it and find a way out of it. Thanks for the chat and as far as I could tell a nicer tone than usual.

I think for you to convince me to accept evolution,like you.I would need you to give evidence and reasons you are convinced it is true according to science.I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss it.I would like to know what evidence convinces you it is right though because although it seems like a mountain of evidence as far as I can tell it lacks too much in very important ways,where it matters.

From my research I believe evolution creates a very big credibility problem and I expect better from science.

Every layer of polar ice contains dust, pollen, acid, volcanic ash etc. All of them.

I dont know where you get this "world wide dust'" thing. There is, though, no known or identifiable layer that is found world wide and can be connected to a flood. The geologists would have noticed it if were there, esp considering how hard some people have looked for it.


IF there were a world wide flood such as some imagine, topping the mountains, then
it would, yes, float the ice away. It would then break up, melt away. The ice is still there.

Of course, there are so many versions of what the "flood" may have been, as to when where how big etc.

What sort of flood are you imagining?

Nessa wrote:I still don't understand though how you get life from non life. The absolute complexities of a single cell which darwin himself seem to not be aware of.

Well, you're in good company there. It has been one of the great scientific searches of our time. Nevertheless, I think we will get there in the end!

Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

But this, on the other hand, is easier to visualise. A single fertilised human egg cell is most definitely not intelligent. A year or so later, it has developed into something which is already remarkably intelligent, and a few years after that, it can be the most intelligent thing on the planet.

hughfarey wrote:This is far from indisputable. I have tried to track down the source for the "1:1 X 10^40000" and other numbers, that are often quoted as having been formulated by a Prof. Vikram Singh of Cardiff University. I cannot find any reference to this man, either on the Cardiff University website, which has complete lists of its senior staff, or any mathematical papers attributed to him on Google scholar. Have you a reference to his calculations?

Yes. It is from an interview with the Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias from the late 1980's. I quoted part of what Ravi put forward on "How do you know there is a God?" for Audie's benefit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

hughfarey wrote:Anyway, there are about 100 billion galaxies, each with about 100 billion stars, each of which is, of course, a solar system. Of the tiny number of these we have been able to study, about half a dozen earth-like, possibly habitable planets have already ben discovered, and some estimates claim there may be as many as 10 billion of them in the Milky Way alone. It may turn out that, given 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 planets and 10 000 000 000 years, the random coherence of amino acids into self-replicating molecules, and the development of reproducing cells, is not only probable, but almost inevitable.

As to the chance that a Universe can support life, there is no evidence that ours is unusual - it's the only one we know. What's more, although it is a truism that the universe is suitable for life as we know it, we do not know that other configurations might not be equally suitable for another kind of life, even intelligent life. It is nonsense to suppose that a Universe that supports life must be rare; after all, intelligent life is common to 100% of all the universes we know!

Fair enough. If there are other civilizations out there in the Universe, then Christ already died for them, as the Bible claims, "He died once for all" quite a number of times in the New Testament (Rom 6:10, 1 Pet 3:18, Heb 7:27, Heb 9:28 and other places). He is not being crucified as we speak on some other planet, to die over and over again and to be resurrected again and again, as that is absurd because the Bible claims He sat down at the right hand of God after the Ascension into Heaven. So maybe that means the Christian message will be proclaimed throughout the galaxy in the future.

I do not mean to be condescending in any way. You believe in Theistic evolution. I do not. I see no evidence of it in the Genesis account of creation which attributes all creative processes to God Himself.

God (or He) created 6 times 1:1, 21, 27(three times alone); 2:3
God moved once 1:2
God said 10 times 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29
God saw 7 times 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31
God divided twice 1:4, 7
God called 5 times 1:5, 5, 8, 10, 10
God made 7 times 1:7, 16, 25, 31; 2:2, 2, 3
God set once 1:17
God blessed 3 times 1:22, 28; 2:3
God ended once 2:2
God rested twice 2:2, 3
He sanctified once 2:3

Maybe God used a process called evolution. Maybe He did not. I have attempted to understand both sides of it over the years, as objectively as I could but I always keep coming back to God Himself as the Creator, Maker, Sustainer and Former of everything without any process whatsoever but still using advanced laws, similar to the way Christ healed lepers, cursed fig trees, stopped storms and healed blind people within moments of time by simply speaking or touching.
The most objective article I have read on Theistic evolution is found in Professor John Lennox's book, 'Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science'. Professor Lennox covers Theistic Evolution and the God of The Gaps in Appendix E of that book and it is well worth reading.

You are a Christian though and that is good. I would rather not get into an argument with you about non-salvation issues like creation stances because we could argue for a century as to who is right or wrong and this forum are full of members who hold to different creation stances than you or I and can intelligently and vigorously back them up.

hughfarey wrote:

Nessa wrote:I still don't understand though how you get life from non life. The absolute complexities of a single cell which darwin himself seem to not be aware of.

Well, you're in good company there. It has been one of the great scientific searches of our time. Nevertheless, I think we will get there in the end!

Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

But this, on the other hand, is easier to visualise. A single fertilised human egg cell is most definitely not intelligent. A year or so later, it has developed into something which is already remarkably intelligent, and a few years after that, it can be the most intelligent thing on the planet.

So you think the cell is not intelligently designed?
Where does the information and code within the cell come from?

Nessa wrote:I still don't understand though how you get life from non life. The absolute complexities of a single cell which darwin himself seem to not be aware of. Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

Don't worry Nessa, no one does. If they claim otherwise they're lying, but life exists doesn't it, so it must have happened! Improbabilities rather than saying impossibilities makes people feel more comforted who don't want to believe God exists. A 1 in 10⁴⁰ chance, based upon "random" chance, and again we're here aren't we? Evidence life came from non-life.

Kurieuo wrote:

Nessa wrote:I still don't understand though how you get life from non life. The absolute complexities of a single cell which darwin himself seem to not be aware of. Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

Don't worry Nessa, no one does. If they claim otherwise they're lying, but life exists doesn't it, so it must have happened! Improbabilities rather than saying impossibilities makes people feel more comforted who don't want to believe God exists. A 1 in 10⁴⁰ chance, based upon "random" chance, and again we're here aren't we? Evidence life came from non-life.

As long as you include the liars who say they know it was "god".

Audie wrote:And you have gone through the biochemistry to know that the damn lies and statistics are correct?

It certainly is a fact that all manner of quite complex organic molecules
self assemble under a wide variety of conditions.

Given 330 million cubic miles of water, and the fantasticatillion number of
atoms, the speed with which they interact, and some few millions of years to work with, any reaction that is possible is going to happen.

Assembling an entire DNA molecule for, say, a hop toad, from a soup of atoms
is of course not going to happen. It is a false argument, nobody has ever proposed such a thing.

Is your main idea here that evoltuion is impossible, or that life had to be started by a god, and then could evolve from there?

Katabole may not have, but what evidence do you have that Vikram Singh is incorrect? You asked for a defensible point and were provided a real datapoint. You then waved away the evidence with a vague reference to 330 million cubic miles of water as if that somehow resolved the math problem. Not good enough, Audie. Moreover, if it were as easy as you were suggesting, we would have a possible chemical pathway to the origins of life, and I'm sure you can acknowledge that we don't have that. Now, you've rightly always insisted on honesty and that science doesn't prove, that evidence is not proof, and so on. Surely you can admit that this is a single data point of evidence in favor of creationism.

And we can press it further. The follow up article you posted really is little more than a straw man. It is certainly true that no one claims that fully formed DNA just popped into existence, but that's hardly the argument that any creationist actually makes. Again, the problem is with a chemical pathway to DNA. Suppose we start with RNA. Fine, what's the pathway to RNA. The basic problem here is that you need RNA to build proteins but that you need proteins to build RNA, and further, even if you had the two together, you need them in a highly complex organism called a cell in order to even get things going. So even our simple RNA world is hardly so simple. Moreover, even such protein would need to fold, and as such, most research on this subject (at least, what I'm aware of in my non-specialization) is related to the domains of the protein--that is, those independently folding units that form the basis of modern proteins.

But here's the kicker: even those are too complex to have came into existence by random chance, even in an ocean of 330 million cubic miles of water!

So what's the answer? Right now, we don't have one. Perhaps you'll find this very short entry worth reading (where I pulled some of the information above from): http://www.eb.tuebingen.mpg.de/research ... ution.html. Considering that the most recent citation is a paper from 2015, I think we're dealing with pretty good information.

Bottom line, perhaps someday we'll come up with a model in which the probabilities are not absurd. But we do not as of today have that model. And what that means is that, so far as the evidence tells us today, right now, there is no chemical pathway to the evolution of the first life. Again, perhaps it will someday be found, but on what basis do we posit that it will be found? At what point does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence. We have an absolute absence of evidence of a global flood, and that qualifies as evidence that no such event ever occurred, right? And so the creationist can make the claim here.

Again, I'm not asking you to claim abiogenesis is wrong. I am hoping, though, that you can admit that your very basic question was asked--you requested a single defensible point that evolution (in the completely godless sense) is false (in the sense that God didn't guide it and didn't create anything out of nothing). You've been provided one. Proof? Of course not. But a defensible point? I really hope you can at least admit that . . .

Audie: As long as you include the liars who say they know it was "god".

Audie, you need to watch your mouth with the insulting comments, as you just called ALL of the Christians and theists of all stripes here a liar!

Audie, are YOU a liar? I could turn your snide comment around and say, people whom assert they KNOW that no God was necessary or exists is a liar - except while you constantly make sarcastic statements about Belief in God and Scripture, you have acknowledged that 1) you DON'T have any knowledge that explains the origins or a source of all that exists, and 2) you have previously conceded (in a grudging way, perhaps) that, while it MIGHT be possible that some type of god might exist, that you are nonetheless fairly certain He could not be the God of the Bible. So, as you can't and haven't said you KNOW for CERTAIN there is no God, I guess I can't call YOU a liar - as rude as that would be. Show some respect! Nothing wrong with attacking a belief others have that you think has no merit. But it's quite another to throw out unnecessary insults to those holding whatever beliefs you happen to disagree with. STOP DOING IT!!!