Good grief, is Richard Dawkins trolling on our forum? That's funny, I can't think of one thing that could have arisen from nothing. And it's pretty despicable that a so-called believer in G-d could indicate that the universe could possibly form itself on its own. I think you're an atheist in drag.
I have a personal belief in God and that God used natural processes (that he created) to form the universe and life. What I don't claim is that science can demonstrate God's presence. It's my opinion that science can't do that. It's a matter of faith, not science, to believe in God.
Also, evolution does not claim that everything "Came from nothing". Why do you think it claims that? Where did you learn about evolution? I could show you some links that might help you know what it is you're actually fighting against and then maybe you can decide whether you still want to.
Since God is supernatural, and not measurable, the burden of proof is on believers. The one making an exceptional claim is the one who has the burden of proof.
What if I came up to you and said "I saw a green unicorn! It's in a barn just outside of town! I saw it eating hay!" Would you expect the burden of proof to be on me, or on you? How would you feel if you said "I don't believe you, prove it" and I said "Nuh uh, you can't prove I didn't see it, prove I didn't see it or I win!"
In my opinion God can't be proven any more than the green unicorn can, but of course as believers we know that He is very real. It's a matter of faith.
How much more specific could I be? I said NO natural process can account for the change from nothing into something, let alone something complex
Evolution doesn't claim that anything changed "from nothing into something". I was wondering what specific claim of evolution (that it actually makes) that you don't agree with.
Most people who are unhappy with evolution and evolutionists feel that way because they don't understand what evolution actually says and believe it says all kinds of horrible things instead.
Those ideas are 2 sides of the same coin. How life evolved is directly tied to how it began. And like I said, they both involve randomness.
It can be confusing because in creationism, both happened at the same time. In science however, they're separate subjects.
If you want to talk about it from a scientific perspective then you need to understand the difference between abiogenesis and biological evolution. Abiogenesis is the origin of life from chemical precursors, and biological evolution is basically how different types of life came about after the first life was here.
Nice try, but that just proves 2 of my points. One, that the conditions had to be just perfect for life to spontaneously occur, and two that evolutionists (which are delusioned enough to believe in abiogenesis) depend on random chance.
There's an analogy that pretty much blows away that "perfect conditions" stuff.
Imagine if a puddle of water were to become sentient. It might wonder why the hole it's in fits its shape just perfectly. "Wow" it thinks to itself, "This hole fits me just right! It's the exact shape that I am!" The point of this is that life could have formed in another way, under other conditions. Life like us may need very specific conditions to form or to survive, but who is to say we're the only possible form of life? If life does form, then the conditions were obviously "just right" for it to form, no matter what kind of life it was.
Natural processes such as abiogenesis and evolution are actually selective processes, not "random chance". Where did you read that they were based on random chance? That's not true at all.
If you put rocks and flour into a sieve, is it "random chance" that the flour goes through and the rocks stay in the sieve? No, and natural selection works the same way, as a filter; the complete opposite of "random chance".
I didn't say science was a religion, I said evolutionists practice a religion. Evolution is only a pseudo-science. And another thing that religious people fail to understand is how these supposedly fact-based thinkers will continuously deny the facts when it doesn't support their agenda.
Evolution doesn't require any faith, so how can it be a religion? Secondly, what "agenda" do evolutionists supposedly have?
My point was that atheist evolutionists are following a religion and are no different from other religious practitioners, who often rely on those who know more than them to be the ones to explain what they have faith in.
The best way to overcome that is to learn as much as you can about the subject that you're interested in, especially if you want to argue against it.
It's not "neutral" when scientists using simple observation and evidence who believe that there is an intelligent designer are octracized.
Many evolutionists believe in an "intelligent designer". That doesn't make them "Intelligent Design" advocates. ID is a very specific movement within the creationist community that is more about forcing creationism under camoflauge into public schools than it is about talking about the compatibility of theism with science. If it were just the latter, I'd feel differently about the ID movement.
The establishment science on global warming says that climate change is due to human involvement, but the truth is that climate has changed many times in the earth's history and this is just another cycle.
I don't think they know what percentage of it is due to human activity, but it would be rather silly not to say some of it is due to that. What irritates me is how the liberals will use that to try to put all kinds of restrictions on Americans when China is the big global warming culprit.
The scientists who agree with the latter are ostracized by the establishment.
If they are right then they should do more studies and publish them in respected journals to back up their claims. Peer review is a necessary part of the modern scientific method. If they can't convince other scientists there's probably a good reason for it.
This is the same scenario as evolution. The establishment says that life came about by chance under perfect conditions that they can't reproduce, and by random mutations it gradually developed into what it is today,
Do you really think that's what it says?
but the truth is that there was a designer (G-d) who made all things. Scientists who believe in the latter are ostracized.
God-believing scientists are not ostracized simply for being theists. Theism and Atheism are philosophical choices, based on personal beliefs or persuasions. Science does not confirm or condemn either philosophy.
Someone going around screaming that the earth is 6000 years old probably won't be given the time of day though.
They are both used as political tools, because the evolutionist establishment tries to keep intelligent design proponents from being heard, and also keep it out of the classrooms.
It doesn't belong in science classrooms because it's not science.
Shouldn't kids be able to hear what intelligent design scientists have to say too?
So you're going to let every hare-brained idea into every class without any real evidence? What's next? The Norse mythological creation story in science class? Holocaust-deniers in history class? There's something called a standard of evidence, and peer review, and the "ID" movement has failed on both counts.
So therefore, you oppose the global warming politics, but you support the evolutionist politics. I'm just saying, why pick and choose?
I accept both as scientifically valid theories, and I expect both to be taught about in science class.
I don't always like the way evolution has been used politically either though. It just seems like global warming is being used more by liberals right now to try to take rights away from American companies.
Scientists who believe in abiogenesis have tried and failed to produce RNA and cells from scratch.
There are other nucleotides that are more simple than RNA.
The reason is because abiogenesis didn't happen--they were created by an Intelligent Designer.
Is there any reason that God couldn't have guided a chemical process to create the first life?
"Abiogenesis is a rich field of discovery" basically just means it's a crock that can't be proven. It's about as much of a rich field of discovery as alchemy.
Alchemy isolated several elements and actually came up with a lot of the basis of modern chemistry. Newton, one of the greatest scientists in history, was an alchemist.
Some of the things that alchemists tried to do weren't scientifically valid but the only way they could find out was to try, and test their methods. Over time, of course, knowledge progressed and modern chemistry emerged.
Also, why do you think I care about those other 2 people you mentioned?
They're big names within the creationist community and bring up many of the "points" that you bring up, so I thought maybe you had listened to them before.