The world to me is too great, complex and amazing to think it just happened out of the blue. Personally, I think it takes more faith to not believe in a creator.

Everytime I look at my garden, or I see a perfectly symmetrical butterfly, all kinds of things, I can't deny the existence of a creator.

Walker - you dont' really know me. Yes, I have tried not believing in God, I went down that path very seriously and realized it was just not what I believe.

Science does not explain it sufficiently either.

And didn't even Darwin towards the end of his life admit there was something more, some sort of creator?

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

--source: (Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )

"Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304-317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so. Yours faithfully, Francis Darwin. Brookthorpe, Gloucester. May 28, 1918."

--source: (Quoted from James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Book House, MI. 1994, p. 21.)

M, even though your source (a pro-Creationist website) refutes another attempt by fundamentalist Christian's at deceiving the general public (who don't bother to cross-check), I should think directly "from the horse's mouth" is a better source...

There are many leading scientists who also accept creation.

The scientist who discovered the "G-nome" is a perfect example.

Evolution, being a "theory" cannot be anything other than a question of faith.

Please show us any examples of the evolution of one species into another.

I've heard many people use the complexity of the universe as evidence that god existis. In reality, a universe without god is far simpler, as a sentient god adds whole new levels of complexity. Why do you suppose that a universe with a supreme creator who has the conscious intelligence, technical knowledge, mechanical ability, and inexplicable desire to create it is simpler than the same universe without such an infinitely more complicated being?

Why would one suppose a universe created by a god were simpler than one that wasn't?

Monger wrote:

I've heard many people use the complexity of the universe as evidence that god existis. In reality, a universe without god is far simpler, as a sentient god adds whole new levels of complexity. Why do you suppose that a universe with a supreme creator who has the conscious intelligence, technical knowledge, mechanical ability, and inexplicable desire to create it is simpler than the same universe without such an infinitely more complicated being?

I'm not sure if I understand. Are you asking, Why would one suppose a universe created by a god were simpler than one that wasn't? Would you explain a bit more?

Thorwald wrote:

M, even though your source (a pro-Creationist website) refutes another attempt by fundamentalist Christian's at deceiving the general public (who don't bother to cross-check), I should think directly "from the horse's mouth" is a better source...

Yep. Just thought that as Acheick is a Christian she might appreciate it coming from a Christian website.

Day wrote:

Monger wrote:

I've heard many people use the complexity of the universe as evidence that god existis. In reality, a universe without god is far simpler, as a sentient god adds whole new levels of complexity. Why do you suppose that a universe with a supreme creator who has the conscious intelligence, technical knowledge, mechanical ability, and inexplicable desire to create it is simpler than the same universe without such an infinitely more complicated being?

I'm not sure if I understand. Are you asking, Why would one suppose a universe created by a god were simpler than one that wasn't? Would you explain a bit more?

My point is that a god capable of creating the universe would be more complex than the universe itself. Or rather, the idea of god creating the universe solves fewer mysteries than it creates.

"So when the Bible says, 'God created the heavens and the earth', was it just a figure of speech--Aramaic slang for 'God's a powerful guy'-- or is it to be taken literally? ... where do you draw the line?"

When it says, "He that believeth not the Son ... the wrath of God abideth on him", is that just an idiom for "He'll have a lousy day"?

"Nor is there evidence that he could."

"Your friend accepts that Elisha was a prophet. Is it possible that 3000 years from now, people will believe that David Berg was a prophet because they find ancient documents calling him one?"

Quote:
"Remember Occam's Razor? Often the simplest answer is the correct one."

"His 'privilege' was the ability to summon God to perform miracles for him."

An additional factor to Occam's Razor is that one must be careful of simple answers that are based on assumptions.

"The only reason your friend can accept that explaination is because they have internalized the above assumptions and consider them to be fact. It is an illogical explaination for anyone who has not accepted them. "

"As I said earlier, God is a concept."

Yet, the text refutes you.

My point is that a god capable of creating the universe would be more complex than the universe itself. Or rather, the idea of god creating the universe solves fewer mysteries than it creates.

...an iron kettle fashioning itself does seem unlikely. With the addition of the blacksmith into the picture, everything does become much more complex, but without him the iron kettle wouldn’t be. What is it that I'm failing to consider here?

Cultural anthropologists challenge the watchmaker argument both as a 1) faulty analogy and also as a 2) mistaken idea about the matching of people, animals, and plants to their natural settings. That is, a man's mother makes the man, not a God. And people, animals, and plants have many biological mistakes in their design.

...though one woman may make a watch, the know-how that the watchmaker uses consists of the accumulated learning of many generations of technology workers that managed to make minor improvements on the traditions of prior generations. That is, the cultural evolution in watchmaking from generation to generation demonstrates the very Darwinian accumulation of variations between generations in a population that creationists try to use the watchmaker analogy to disprove. It is not even a case of the watchmaker standing on the shoulders of giants. Developing the art of watchmaking is a case of "midgets standing on the shoulders of a vast pyramid of other midgets."

For example, when John Harrison in 1759 created the most accurate watch that had ever been made for use on sailing ships, he used techniques from many generations of traditions in watchmaking and added in "a number of clever tricks borrowed from other technologies of the time, such as using bimetallic strips (you have seen them coiled behind the needle of oven thermometers and thermostats)" that kept his clocks from changing their rate even when the temperature rose and fell. There are so many hundreds of generations of innovations that go into making any good watch that "William Paley's famous Argument from Design would better support a polytheistic pantheon than his solitary Christian Creator; it takes many designers to make a watch."

Quote:

the know-how that the watchmaker uses consists of the accumulated learning of many generations of technology workers that managed to make minor improvements on the traditions of prior generations. That is, the cultural evolution in watchmaking from generation to generation demonstrates the very Darwinian accumulation of variations between generations in a population that creationists try to use the watchmaker analogy to disprove.
There are so many hundreds of generations of innovations that go into making any good watch that "William Paley's famous Argument from Design would better support a polytheistic pantheon than his solitary Christian Creator; it takes many designers to make a watch."