Yep, its here!
I thought I would start another thread to discuss whether God exists or not.
Before you cry "oh no not another evolution v aliens v religion debate", I would like to make the one rule very clear:
All arguments and statements must be based on KNOWN FACT (so no quotes from the bible I'm afraid)

I will get the ball rolling...

If there is no God, and our existence can be explained purely due to evolution and survival of the fittest, why does compassion exist?
If you are driving somewhere in a hurry, and a cat is sat in the middle of the road, why waste time by stopping and waiting for the cat to move?
If you could rob an old lady blind and no one could possibly know about it, what would stop you?
How does a conscience help if nature is purely survival of the fittest?

Chemical reactions, ability of humans to empathize with another, and genetic code along the lines of a mothers protection to ensure the survival of it's own species; protecting another is indirectly protecting yourself?

As a Deist, you will get no argument from me about the Creator existing, it's just the Deist take on the Creator is neither dogmatic nor revealed. Organized religions tend to become overbearing and violent to both members of other religions and members of their own religion that they precieve to be "straying from the true path".

There must be a survival factor for the act of compassion. I think a good theory is that it was originally the genes of parenting, just like Consummate Deist said. I'm not aware of any non-parenting species that show this compassion. So far I can only find this behavior in mammals. Fix me if I'm wrong here.

It's all chemical reactions, genetic instinct to ensure the survival of the species.

Wide is the path.

I've got other answers but they involve God and the bible so I'll save everyone the trouble of

Great post FB! You have a good handle on philosophy....I look forward to you next postings -

Completely agree with Consummate Deist there... Great post.

Especially this part:

The hardest part I find about their not being a god is how life began in the first place . I have nothing wrong with the theory of evolution itself , its claims do not interfere with gods existance , its when people start saying god doesn't exist that I have a problem . Perhaps someone would like to enlighten me on the current hypoth... I mean err ... "theory" *cough* on how life came to be in the first place , as the reason given has changed over time quite a lot .

its more like the lightning strikes the water creating amino acids, these amino acids react forming RNA, which is capable of self replication and so on forming proteins etc etc i think thats it?

I was hoping for a link to a creditable article rather then a small little explanation in a paragraph . I need to see how the experiment was carried out in detail , as essentially the experiment would have to be extremely controlled for it to be of any kind of use ( the environment in which no life whatsoever existed elsewhere in the air or the water ect would have to be recreated )... on top of that I heard something else recently (about a month ago ) that seem's to discredit the idea anyway .

I think you are looking for the Miller-Urey experiment. The experiment was designed based on understandings about the ancient atmosphere. It was believed by that time that early atmosphere consisted of Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and water vapor (or maybe something else but you get the idea). Then chemical reaction was induced using electrical sparks to mimic lightning believed to be common in the early days. The experiment produces proteins, ATP (if phospates are present), and some other organic molecules.

One of the Creationists main objection about this experiment is the fact that it requires well controlled laboratory condition. However we should note that the laboratory condition was controlled to mimic the early atmosphere, not to create the organic molecules.

Later our knowledge of ancient atmosphere changed slightly, and with the new composition the ammount of organic molecules produced decreases. Nevertheless this experiment shows that it is possible to create organic mollecules from inorganic substances, and the ancient world may be full of these molecules.

The real problem actually lies in the process from amino acids to the first self-replicating substance. There are some hypothesis on these subject, but nothing as hard as Miller-Urey experiment. Do some google search if you want more info on this subject.

Shirini, what mowo said was "I'm not going to kill you because God put conscience within me" rather than "I'm not going to kill you because I think there is a God."

Well.. if it does exists in octopus, then the compasion gene must be originated further back in time, but a better guess is that it might be a byproduct of intelligence. So is there any case of unintelligent creature with compassion? Frogs? Fish (no, not Nemo)?

I was referring to something Saruman posted in the news section , I will see if I can find it .

I found it .
Saruman news post - How did life begin ?

I also find something else that might prove interesting

Saruman news post - New research on near death experiences

i don't see how it really does anything to discredit abiogenesis? i mean, this is the cutting edge of biology

You guys used to have some really heavy discussion, what happened? I found this way back at the first of the archives. Can anyone add something to this?

Where's Hyper our resident genius when you need him???? Namaste sheri

Certainly life has never been created in a laboratory. I do see some confusion as to what the term "organic" means. It doesn't mean life, nor does it mean "came from life" or from living things (as in "organic gardening", where some people believe that inorganic molecules contained in matter that was once alive are "better" for use in fertilizing). In chemistry, it simply means that a molecule contains carbon as a component. Inorganic means that a molecule doesn't contain carbon as a component. If you were to take carbon out of the mix, you could write down all of the molecules which could exist on two or three sheets of tabulated data . . . there just aren't that many, and they aren't very complex. But, when you throw carbon into the mix, Katy, bar the door. The number of different combinations becomes enormous, and even now, new molecules containing carbon . . . organic molecules . . . are being discovered. The complexity also becomes great, with great numbers of ways of sticking it all together, and long chain molecules at that. The list may not be infinitely long, but it sure seems like it if you are studying organic chemistry.

I always thought survival of the fittest took place whne competition was at stake, Like for instance a lack of food. Isn't that just a natural instinct to survive? Yet humans need other humans to surivive. Emotionally and physically.

Some people see it more clearly than others but we are designed basicallly. Lets look at some facts on humanity which lean way more to the direction of "creation" than "random happenings". This is a big post with plenty of useful information in my opinion.

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.4 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents. What about Water? Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees. Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Everything else in the world freezes from the bottom up, but water freezes from the top down. Everything else contracts when it freezes, but water expands. This means that in winter, ponds and rivers and lakes can freeze at the surface, but allow fish and other marine creatures to live down below.

How bout The human brain?...It simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of this article in your hand. Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.8 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?

William Paley made a compelling argument years ago that the intricacies of a watch are so clearly engineered that it cannot be the product of nature: a watch demands a watchmaker. In the same way, the more we discover about our world and ourselves, the more we see that like an expertly-fashioned watch, our world and we ourselves have been finely crafted with intentional design. And design implies a designer.

Probably the greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the planet. One of the startling discoveries about DNA is that it is a highly complex informational code, so complex that scientists struggle hard to decipher even the tiniest portions of the various genes in every organism. DNA conveys intelligent information; in fact, molecular biologists use language terms -- code, translation, transcription -- to describe what it does and how it acts. Communication engineers and information scientists tell us that you can't have a code without a code-maker, so it would seem that DNA is probably the strongest indicator in our world that there is an intelligent Designer behind its existence.

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"

What about the human mind and morals? In areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.

Apologist Greg Koukl points out that guilt is another indicator of ultimate right and wrong. "It's tied into our understanding of things that are right and things that are wrong. We feel guilty when we think we've violated a moral rule, an "ought." And that feeling hurts. It doesn't hurt our body; it hurts our souls. An ethical violation is not a physical thing, like a punch in the nose, producing physical pain. It's a soulish injury producing a soulish pain. That's why I call it ethical pain. That's what guilt is -- ethical pain."

Yeah its true- we are without excuse!

ramster,

i seem to remember what you posted being posted in another thread.

Anyway, the entire lengthy bable-talk you posted merely displays a compete lack of understanding of how the processes of evolution (both "evolution" and "evolutionary theory") works. It must be looked at as an unfolding of events, the building of complexity. You are looking at it backwards by starting with "human life" and then looking for how it has the perfect environs. The human is a product of the environs so of course the human fits well within it. If the human did not it would not be here!

YOU CAN NOT COMPARE A WATCH TO NATURAL PROCESSES!!!!!!!!!

Morale values my friend, these are simply human values. Some have it more then others, some ignore it, but we all posses them.
In general you cant answer whetter God does or does not excist, this is a question humans have fought, died, debated over thousands of years.
All you can know for sure is that God isnt answering anything, he gave humans free will, so its up to us to find that out

I agree.
The earth has not evolved for the sole exclusive misuse of man.
Good grief.
I think you need a crash course in Shamanism, where you will begin to re-aquaint yourself with Nature.
Here you will begin realizing that everything is alive. Animals, trees, plants, rocks, each have their own "aliveness". Although this aliveness is different from human life it is an awareness of being all the same.
This understanding, once realized, changes our attitude to the earth and other forms of life.
Everything is connected and nothing exists in isolation from everything else.
It is attitudes like this that we are in trouble.
We are abusing nature, thinking we can control her and that she is here for our benefit.
Pish Posh...(sorry Hyper)

Hyper, i'm trying to PM you on this topic your box is full or something thanks sheri

Ramster, as usual you are in such a hurry to prove your invisible sky-buddy, that you post carp from places like http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/isthere/isthere2.html, not realizing that what they write is very often distorted of untrue. Here are a few things I immediately saw:

So not true, Mars is much smaller than Earth, yet has an atmosphere and even possibly life. Titan is smaller than Mercury but has an atmosphere even thicker than that of Earth and again might possibly have non-carbon based life. This data is not a valid argument for design.

Since we have not physically been to any other world than our moon Luna, we can not state that Earth is the only planet in this solar system, much less this universe, to sustain life. Heck, we don’t even know if carbon is the only basis for life, Xenobiologists have theorized life forms based on silicon with copper based blood and breathing methane, these three elements/chemical compounds would be capable of carrying on a life function. All that your statement would show is that we evolved to breathe the atmosphere that currently exists on Earth. This too is not a valid argument for design.

While there is some point that life as we know it (carbon based) would no longer be viable, the “zone of habitation” is larger than you think. The zone of habitation is defined as the point that the water cycle still operational. In this solar system it is about 65,000,000 miles (approximately the orbit of Venus) from the sun to 127,000,000 miles (just short of the orbit of Mars), under different stellar classes, it could be much smaller or much larger. Again, not a viable argument for design, it only means that our type of life evolved under these conditions only because those were the “only conditions in town”

Mathematics also shows that bumble bees cannot fly.
This has nothing to do with the subject and only shows the absurdity of trying to use math and statistics to prove Something couldn’t happen.

These come from society and individual interactions. We sacrifice for each other for that time honored “survival of the species”, if you will notice, animal parents will sacrifice themselves (if necessary) to insure that their young live, thus insuring the continuation of the species for another generation. There is nothing magical about this, this isn’t something pressed into our heads by the invisible sky-daddy, it is survival of the fittest and survival of the species. I have seen brave animals, I have seen animals display love, and I have seen animals display compassion, none of this, that you wish to ascribe to only humanity as proof of your invisible sky-friend exists, is unique.
While I believe in a Creator, I can't see anything in the garbage you posted that is evidence for design, everything there is easily explained by alternate methods without the inclusion of ID. It is my firm belief that Evolution is merely the tool the Creator used to create the vast pool of life we see around us. I seriously doubt if he "spoke" the universe into existence.