That's the obvious question to ask but I don't think it's of much use beyond being a quick rejoinder. If you believe in an eternal God, asking who is responsible for making God is a category error. You can't make something that has always existed.

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

Its a debate. I'll use whatever factual evidence I have to support my beliefs. Everyone who participated in the study had a PhD in their respective field, and performed their tests using science. So regardless of any slogans, it furthers my point and so I will use it. Who/what made god? Well you already know what I'm going to say so why even ask it. I obviously believe god has always been around. If god is real and created the world then I don't have any problem believing he was always around. Protozoa weren't always around, and nothing didn't explode and create something. Thats what science says. I'm a christian so I can believe and have faith that god was always around. You believe science must prove everything. But science can't even prove your own beliefs.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Yes, it's a debate, but I backed up my argument with a link to the Smithsonian and you reply with a link to a small, non-profit, biased organization. I feel like I must restate this to get your attention: I linked to the Smithsonian. That's about as trustworthy a source as you're going to get. Every time you post a poorly-chosen, obviously-biased source, people attack it for what it is.
As for abiogenesis (the theory of how life began), it's actually rather simple. You take a soup rich in nutrients and base compounds, give it some energy, and those base compounds combine to form more complex ones. The simplest and earliest forms of life would be practically unrecognizable by modern standards, but through evolution became what we see today.
Now, Wolff, you seem to be laboring under the assumption that science claims to have an explanation for everything. That's incorrect; scientific method promises to explain everything through data gathered from experiments. This debate covers much ground that scientists have been unable to experiment on, and therefore we do not yet have as solid theories as we do on more easily-observed topics, such as Newtonian Motion. That does not, however, mean that science is unable to explain those areas, only that we have yet to figure out an explanation.
Now, I'm going to go on the attack. You say you believe in God, but why? You have no evidence, no solid proof, nothing besides a book written thousands of years ago. You can cast doubt on the proof we bring forward against Christianity, but you have yet to provide any proof for us to cast our own doubts upon.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

Why does every debate against Christianity end up being nothing more than an attack on the faith or on the history of the religion?

__________________
Under Construction

Wolff, I noticed the author of your article has no background in any type of science-related field.

On top of that, he writes for a website that is clearly biased.

So what "PhD and scientific tests" are you talking about, exactly?

__________________
The wrath of God is unleashed in the hands of man.
This is their plans; to infect the lands,
to force everyone to meet their demands.

So science doesn't have an explanation for everything yet, but will one day?

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

You don't need a PhD to write a summary of a scientific report. I don't have a PhD and yet I can still write a report on Newtons Laws of Motion.

This is the data i'm referring to :
"The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
Steven Austin, PhD Geology
Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies
The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.8 Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.9

Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.

Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.10
Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere11. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently.12 Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

Because of C-14’s short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.13
Conclusion
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.

The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.14"

I highlighted an area in red as you see. I would just like to point out that the study was done by scientists simply to observe uncommon practices of dating. It wasn't done biasedly in a "we must prove god exists" sort of way. The evidence that came from this happens to contradict evolutionist theories. That doesn't make this necessarily biased. Yes the website is argueing for the side of christianity. But we're not lieing about facts here, just stating evidence found. You can't argue the facts the RATE Group found.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Are you saying "a soup rich in nutrients and base compounds" has just always existed. And then energy that also apparently has just always existed helped to make more complex compounds. And then after millions of years these complex compounds became a protozoa and then that protozoa became an animal and eventually became a human. And on top of that, the protozoa was apparently floating through a vast space of nothingness, because I haven't heard any explanation on how the earth and stars and space was made. Was the earth and space just always around? Science tells me you need energy to create things, so I don't know how you're going to explain that nothingness created earth, space, nutrients, energy, and eventually complex compounds. Even if I wasn't a christian, I would find it hard to believe that nothing exploded and then we all of a sudden have the world as we know it. I would also find it hard to believe that nutrients and base compounds floated in a vast space of nothingness, and all of a sudden energy which apparently didn't exist made them combine into a compound which millions of years later became a human. And earth apparently just randomly shows up for us to live on. I would find it hard to believe that nature naturally created every complex organism on this planet discovered or yet undiscovered. How can you honestly believe any of that. Any way you look at it, you can't honestly prove evolution nor can you honestly prove creation. My religion allows me to have a thing called faith, while science doesn't allow faith. With faith I don't need to know an answer to every one of my creation questions. And you need to face it, science simply cannot prove everything. There are things science will never be able to prove with an experiment. You don't have all the answers, because no one does nor ever will. (excluding god of course) I believe it not because there is a book with some crazy all powerful man in it, but because when I've followed what the "crazy all powerful man" in that book told me to do. When i've done the right things, prayed,stuck with my faith, tried to be non judgemental and caring, I've had a sense of joy. When I've come from super hard circumstances and during those times of trifle the only time I've felt super secure and safe is when I'm spending alone time praying and talking with god. God's personally changed my life. I can feel the difference he has made. You say "scientific method promises to explain everything through data gathered from experiments. This debate covers much ground that scientists have been unable to experiment on, and therefore we do not yet have as solid theories as we do on more easily-observed topics, such as Newtonian Motion". Basically what you're telling me is that science promises to prove everything but is unable to prove everything just yet. God proves everything for me. And the things I don't understand, well I have faith that he'll reveal those to me sooner or later. Maybe in heaven, but hey who knows.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

I give you proof and you throw it out the door, you give me proof and i disprove it. You ask for proof of everything, yet you say science (which is the sole base of your arguement) cannot prove everything. Why is it that I should provide an answer to every one of your questions when you can't answer mine. Regardless of that, i've answered your questions and more.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Your "proof" comes from biased, unreputable sources, the same sources you try and use to disprove my arguments.
As for the RATE study, I would think that if this were reproducible, people would be making a much bigger deal about it. Given that I've seen nothing else collaborating the study or even mentioning it, I'm going to tentatively blame their results on experimental error (quite probably contamination) or misinterpretation of data. One of the reasons I'm so willing to do this is because I can find no references to it on any reputable website.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

And it's a more viable solution that according to the Christian Bible says that a All-Seeing All-Knowing God decided to randomly create the universe and earth as we know it? I still can believe you had the nerve to say all that when YOU and your book of answers says that God created the universe by saying "Let there be light".

And nutrients and base compounds didn't just "float in a vast space of nothingness". I suggest you read this, so you can actually understand what is widely accepted by scientists and the general population.

__________________

Quoting myself for good measure

__________________




Is irritated that calling a moron a moron is grounds for post deletion.

http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... =Delonyera

٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶

If it's because you wanted me to reply to it, then fine.

Those arguments are pointless. That's what I was trying to get at, but sadly the point was lost. We don't know anything about how the world began and it's foolish of us to think that we know anything. It's logically impossible for something to have just always existed. This includes deities. I firmly believe that existence itself should be impossible, yet here we are.

I don't think anyone that believes a greater being started everything is wrong. I don't think people that claim there's no being are wrong either. I just don't think anyone is right. I DO however believe that the Book of Genesis should be thrown out and not be treated as fact because science has proven that it's wrong. If there IS a greater being then I highly doubt they ever did anything more than trigger the events of what we consider the beginning. There's no reason that evolution, the big bang, and religion can't co-exist other than the religious groups refusing to believe that something in their scriptures could possibly be wrong.

__________________
It's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!

Wasn't necessarily looking for you to reply in particular, just wanted to get the point across since it seems it was skipped over. I'd much rather see this thread locked, because at this point it's just restating arguments that have been already stated *on this website* time and time again.

__________________




Is irritated that calling a moron a moron is grounds for post deletion.

http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... =Delonyera

٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶

"Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."

so your big bang theory is just a big guess.....just like every other scientific theory. You can't do a science experiment to prove how earth began and I can't slap you with the miracles of god enough to make you believe. We're argueing in circles now so I guess its time to lock this thread.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

The Big Bang Theory isn't a guess. It's a logical conclusion based on all known matter to be drifting away from one point. What we don't know is how or why it was there to explode or what has started this explosion.

You seem to be confusing the Big Bang with some giant firework. Whether anyone believes in your god or not is a moot point. There's no reason someone can't believe that your god put that hunk of mass there. They'd just have to accept that the bible was created from outdated theories of the world.

And no it's not time to lock this thread. A thread doesn't get locked for being "done" and the only person that should ever request a thread be locked is the thread's owner.

__________________
It's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!

Its not a conclusion. More of an educated guess. A conclusion would mean that it is the final, correct answer, which it is not.

"The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."

So you're basing the creation of all of the universe today on a theory that we started because of a singularity. And a singulatity is something you know nothing about. You're telling me that a singularity caused everything to be as it is now, but you don't even know what a singularity is...and because we don't understand singularitiys, any theory you have on it is just that a THEORY. its a guess. Albeit sometimes an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. And about locking the topic, starbucks no longer visits this debate (to my knowledge at least) and discrimin8 agrees with me about argueing in circles. On a totally unrelated topic......

100 POST COUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

I highly doubt Bible is an outdated theory, it is relevance today just as much as it was 2000 years ago. Provided you try to understand the message of Jesus, and not trying to prove Christian god's might and divinity as the only reason you follow the bible (as I call it insurance for afterlife).

As for big bang theory, it is a theory for many reasons, one of the most important fact is we don't know everything, thus we cannot say without a doubt that this is what happened. we might be 99% sure, but still doubt might rise in the future. Big Bang theory is just a theory which based on our current understanding of the universe, the most likely one. Big bang theory like any other theories, needs constantly be challenged, reviewed and updated as our understanding grow. To say it is the truth now and forever, is just as bad as someone saying Christian god is the one and only god. Hope you can see the similarities.

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

I don't accept the Big Bang Theory as a whole FYI. I agree that since everything we know in the universe is drifting away from one point that it's clear that it all came from one point.

And I didn't mean the Bible as a whole is incorrect and should be thrown out. Just a great deal of the Old Testament.

__________________
It's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!

I sort of agree with this; none of us were around when the world began, be it 2,500 years ago or 6,000 or 500,000,000 or however many years, which means none of us can say with provable 100% certainty what happened. We can have faith though (or lack of it as the case may be (or faith in scientific stuff, you know what I mean)) but these kind of debates don't seem like they can ever be resolved. (In addition it seems a far cry from the topic's original purpose, which was the debate the video?)Not trying to pull any sort of "olol no Genesis all happened because I am religious" thing here, but in what ways do you mean it's been proven wrong? I don't have any sort of links or anything, but I distinctly recall articles with scientists talking about finding seashells on certain mountaintops that couldn't have occurred without the Great Flood, for one.