given the anthropic principle..... from wiki sense im lazy"The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1][2] " so given that you can think about it being unlikely that all of these things happened in evolution, then the likeylihood is not infinitely small, its actually 1.

also
"I could just as easily ask you for evidence that God doesn't exist, and you would be just as (supposedly) unable as me to find any."

to prove a negative is not the same as to prove a positive. exsampel..... prove to me that the spagetti monster(that all of those new atheists are talkiing about) is not real. its not possible.

just on an ending note..... there is much more eveidence for julius ceasers exsistence then of jesus crists.... they even made coins whit his portrait.... you know on those things you pay whit in the hole empire

Edited 2/6/2020 14:18:19

where is the evidence he does not exist

where is the evidence he does not exist

No scientific evidence of God's existence has been found. And the evidence allegedly proving the existence of god is insufficient, therefore we assume that that this hypothetical god doesn't exist.

And if you think that atiests are here to deny every evidence for god then you are very very wrong, I myself am very much open minded and I really wish that a god exists...but the evidence aren't convincing enough. For e.g. which one do you prefer to believe in, bible/quran narrating 'creation of adam and eve' or scientifically proved 'evolution'?

hy·poth·e·sis
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

ie, you need evidence to debunk a hypothesis. if you do not have substantial evidence, it is wrong to say it is false.

@Tac(ky)tical
honey do you know that hypothetical also means: imagined, made up and unreal?

doesn’t mean what i said is wrong. there are aliens in outer space, because there are other planets with evidence of water. who are you to say there aren’t any unless you have evidence...

IMO

ganymedes-

I will once again reiterate: Science should NOT be used to prove or disprove any religion. Science acts independently of religion and neither should be mixed with the other.

And I already laid out thoroughly in this thread why I see it as okay for spiritual creationism and scientific evolution to coexist.. science and religion should not be used to mutually exclude the other. Doing so damages the integrity of the other.

Edited 2/6/2020 20:11:00

if there was a god why would he abide the law of physics anyway ;)

@Aura, make that a 5 billion vs 2 million arguement

You really should not be blanketing all believers in God into one bracket. I ensure you that many dedicated christians have made room for evolution in their beliefs.

We also must remember that many of these people who identify as "Christian" or "Muslim" are only so on a secular level, and are not necessarily committed to their beliefs.

https://ncse.ngo/polling-creationism-and-evolution-around-world

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765.full

Edited 2/6/2020 22:59:42

I wonder how many Christians, Muslims, and Jews secretly believe there is no God, and how many Atheists secretly believe there is a God.

Okay, I've changed my mind; ill just reply to a couple of the arguments instead of all of them. 😉
@gany if you believe that the theory of evolution is "proved" then I am going to completely disregard your argument, because as Aura and I have already said, in science you can't "prove" anything. Just because it is the mostly widely held view doesn't mean it's right.
Also, it's not a matter of who has what evidence, it's how people interpret that evidence. As much as Aura likes to say science is objective, it's not, because where people are involved there can never be true objectivity (except maybe in maths. 😉)
@Aura, how do you know how much I am (or am not) skeptical of creation? Though when I was younger I certainly just swallowed it as fact, now there are certain things I do question about it, which is why I haven't brought any of them up, because I am not entirely sure of my own stance on it.

And I agree with Aura about grouping Christians together, not a good idea. Though I will argue that evolution and the Bible are contradictory, and in my opinion it is quite useless to try be a theistic evolutionists; leading atheists have even pointed this out. (I can't remember exactly who, I read it somewhere, I'll try find an example)

Here's one, from Dawkins himself.
https://youtu.be/BAbpfn9QgGA

LND, you mix up bias and objectivity.

Bias, in a liturgical sense, is best described as an "angle" or "edge" that we all tend to have. I am clearly biased towards what the science tells me, of course, but I have reasons for that. However, like I said, I am skeptical, and am more than willing to give up my acceptance of evolution if multiple landmark papers were to occur upending every theory that came beforehand about evolutionary biology, assuming they followed the specific constraints (scientific method), that we ourselves abide by.

Objectivity, on the other hand, is realizing what your biases are, acknowledging them, and making it clear what the implications of them are. In science, we usually state what these are when we describe the assumptions that we make and the limitations that we take into account. The classic "more work needs to be done in... " statement is a bell cow of this.

Science can be and is very often objective.

There is no such thing as "unbiased", but there is such thing as "objectiveness".

I would be willing to accept you as a skeptic to creationism if you were not so adamant about denying evolution when the current science field clearly states otherwise. While your job is to be a skeptic about evolution (as it is for me), you have to acknowledge the 1000s upon 1000s of thoroughly done studies (and also those that note the infeasibilities of creationism), held to a high standard, which support it, and hence, you as a scientist would "generally accept" it.

And I don't mean what spiritual or personal acceptance of the belief is, but I mean acceptance as a scientist.

Placing yourself in the lens of a scientist is not easy to do.

Edited 2/6/2020 23:32:11

I should mention, the science belief could be very well wrong, and your personally/spiritually held beliefs could end up being right. It could very well be the case that creationism is precisely what is true, and evolution could be precisely false. And that's fine. Religion is about believing and faith. Science is about skepticism and criticism. Its okay to be "Science states x, and as a scientist I must respect and acknowledge it, but I personally my faith leads me to believe in y truthfully". Science and Religion don't and should not be mutually exclusive to one another.

If you look at the history of religions, what human beings have attributed to God or Gods came out of a psychological need to explain that which we do not yet understand. We must learn to live with uncertainty, we must be capable of accepting that we don't know everything.

Out of curiosity, what gives Christianity any more legitimacy than pagan religions, than Zoroastrianism, than Islam or Judaism, or even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendages?

Please please please can you guys find somewhere private to share these verses with yourselves.

Btw, this is also an interesting article I found: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/

A bunch of people have mentioned Islam and how we know it's not the truth, compared with Christianity. Here are some hadiths as to why (not posting the actual words because that could get me banned for their content):
https://sunnah.com/urn/1294400
https://sunnah.com/urn/1002010
https://sunnah.com/urn/42350
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/2/190
https://sunnah.com/urn/418130
https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43/167
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/75
https://sunnah.com/muslim/37/159
https://sunnah.com/urn/1262620
https://sunnah.com/muslim/3/30
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/40/8
Let me know if you guys want more, or if you can safely conclude that Islam is false.

Aura, the simple reason for why you haven't seen a lot of creationist research is twofold:
1. In the science community, creationists *are* in the minority; definitely there, but they are outnumbered.
2. Since you have been educated by the majority system, you were not exposed to a lot of the creationist literature that *is* out there. Because, let's be honest, even if you are skeptical of evolution, I would say there's a lot of scientists who just accept it as bible truth (pardon the irony). As such they have no interest whatsoever in exploring other theories - voila, you don't hear anything about creationism.

And one thing we have to recognise about your thousands and thousands of studies that support it, is that thousands of them are studying minute things that have almost no direct consequence to the theory of evolution; however, if you search "evolution" on Google scholar, you will get thousands of results. Why? Because at the end of scientifically examining something in detail (for example, a particular cell's function in the immune system), many scientists will throw a phrase into their conclusion along the lines of "we have now found out that this cell has evolved an entirely unforeseen role in the immune system..." Even if the study findings don't directly support evolution, the "objective" scientists are still inclined to assume that evolution is true and base their conclusion upon this assumption, whether the findings support it or not.

One organisation that does provide the kind of scientific resources you are asking for is Creation Ministries International. (they run a peer-reviewed journal, as well as publishing lots of articles designed for the general public, which are admittedly written peruasively, and some are merely "look how complicated this is, how could evolution have made it?". However, even among the articles, if you find the good ones, they contain many reliable sources and bases for their arguments, and as such deserve to be heard, if not accepted. But if you're looking purely for scientific method, they do have a journal.) If you truly are trained to be skeptical of evolution, then it is your job to search for material that opposes it, and weigh it up. Now, other than the Google scholar search you did, how many times have you actually searched for material against evolution? Or will you pull out your "I'm not looking for spirituality" thing again? 😉
You can't have it both ways; you can't claim to be a skeptic but not look for opposing evidence.

As for the article, it is kind of interesting, the only problem I had with it was the wording of the statement: everything was created in its present form.
While there are some people that believe that, they are the most of ignorant of the lot, because we can observe natural selection and speciation happening now. How it *should* have been worded is basically that God created everything in their present *kinds*, not forms. This is the predominant belief among creationists. As I have previously said, we don't dispute natural selection and speciation, because *we can see it happening*. For example, God created the cat kind, and from the original pair of cats on the Ark are descended all the species of cats today with *a net loss of genetic information*. We can see this happening. We don't, however, agree that from the first cell (1 2 skip a few) came a weird half-cat thing, and that through an *overall gain in information* we have all the cats today. We don't observe this happening, and there are precious few undisputed fossils that support it.
So basically what I am saying is that the article is perhaps (intentionally or unintentionally) misrepresenting the creationist argument.