Civil Discussion About Religion

OK, using your logic, then what did start everything? Knowing that life always has a beginning, it makes sense that something "non human" started it all. So I can understand you wanting to poke holes in the theory that God started it all, but what would add value to this conversation is your theory in what actually did start it all.

If you can admit that something can be created without a creator (god) why not just skip a step and admit that we're created without a creator.

His logic is fine.

If you can admit that something can be created without a creator (god) why not just skip a step and admit that we're created without a creator.

His logic is fine.

No, I am not admitting that something can be created without a creator. I am admitting that something has to be "devine" or superhuman to be created without a creator. There is a big difference there.
The ONLY thing that was created without a creator was God.

So again I ask, if God didn't make it, then who or what did? Something had to have started it all, so who / what was it?

Sounds like you seem to have it. Just remember, don't get greedy and you have to walk away.

OK, so when should I walk away from the table? After getting up by $25? Or maybe $50?

No, I am not admitting that something can be created without a creator. I am admitting that something has to be "devine" or superhuman to be created without a creator. There is a big difference there.
The ONLY thing that was created without a creator was God.

So again I ask, if God didn't make it, then who or what did? Something had to have started it all, so who / what was it?

Better question (which I posed many posts ago but has gone unanswered):

Who says the universe was ever actually created? Why couldn't it have just always existed?

OK, so when should I walk away from the table? After getting up by $25? Or maybe $50?

It really has more to do with the patterns, but they are hard to explain. So just try my beginner lesson I gave and walk away after you're done winning on each area.

Better question (which I posed many posts ago but has gone unanswered):

Who says the universe was ever actually created? Why couldn't it have just always existed?

I already answered this...all of our known world had a beginning. Everything you know had a beginning. That's what science tells us, so of course it is very natural to believe that there is no way it just always existed. Something had to have made it.

I already answered this...all of our known world had a beginning. Everything you know had a beginning. That's what science tells us, so of course it is very natural to believe that there is no way it just always existed. Something had to have made it.

So based on your observations that everything IN our world has a beginning and an end, you BELIEVE that something had to have given a beginning to our world.

That's my point, that's your belief. Doesn't make it so.

And science does not tell us everything has a beginning. I'm not sure where you're getting that? Perhaps you could explain that one to me? One of the laws of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. You can separate it into tiny atoms, but you can't get rid of it. Likewise, you can't create it.

Because there are fossil records that show a gradual development of ancestral apes to homo sapien man. Again, getting back to that incredibly dumbfounding analogy, you don't need to see the wind to know it's there.
What about how there are tons of holes in the fossil record? And how come you can use that analogy for evolution, but someone else can't use it for religion?

I don't need to see cro magnun man to realize that he looks an awful lot like a cross between a man and a gorilla. The scientists have studied the fossils, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that humans in their present form came from apes. I mean how else can you explain why chimpanzees are so similar to humans?
Because they came from the same designer.

Getting to Saden's point about me chilling the F out, lucky for him I'm pretty much coming to the end of the conversation, because pretty much everything that can be said has been said. I can totally dig someone's viewpoint on faith; if you have it, that's fine and it's very noble. Jsarno is a good guy to debate with and I appreciate his views, because while he's religious and I respect him for it, he also acknowledges the overwhelming probability that evolution is on the money. I can agree to disagree with any religious viewpoint. But when someone refuses to believe evolution is probably right? I'm sorry. I find that ignorant. It's like ignoring the work of gaggles of scientists. It's intellectually lazy, and frankly just plain stupid.
Do you realize how small the odds are against the first cell being formed by amino acids randomly coming together? Just for one protein to form in an ideal atmosphere given 100 billion years is estimated to be 1 in 10^67.
Origin of life, does evolution supply the answers? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html)
And I don't feel like hearing your crap that this is a christian website. It is made up of scientific facts.

Evolution is not a belief. It is a theory. Theories have evidence to support them, even though they cannot be proven. There is such thing as being 99% sure a theory is correct. Not everything is 100% sure, and not everything is 0% sure. It's impossible to get to 100% sure on evolution, we don't have time machines. But scientists are 99% sure evolution is on the money; despite the fact that many of those scientists are religious. There's no reason that religious belief and the theory of evolution can't coexist. One is a theory, the other is a belief. They'll only conflict if you're one of those morons who believes every single thing in the Bible (book of Genesis) is true. Thankfully, there aren't many of those people left in the world. Progress is good.

I'm done on this topic. I part by saying religion is great. I don't believe in it, but if you do, good for you. Evolution however, is not a belief. It is a theory. And if you refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, then you truly are ignorant.
Basically all of evolution has been unproven, so you're basically just making things up. You are being ignorant for not looking at all of the facts.

It really has more to do with the patterns, but they are hard to explain. So just try my beginner lesson I gave and walk away after you're done winning on each area.

OK so here's what I did:

I started with 5 on 2nd 12, 5 on 3rd 12, 5 on red, and 5 on odd. From there, I watched what won and lost. If I won on something, I didn't bet it the next time and I doubled my money on the ones that I didn't win on. I kept doing this based on the patterns, and walked away when I got up. I also put a dollar straddling the 0 and 00 on occasion.

After 8 rolls, I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 11 rolls I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 14 rolls, I lost $120. It came up 00 on my very first roll, and I didn't have a $1 on it (because it was my first roll). Then 0 came up three rolls later, and again, since the green squares hadn't hit in a while, I didn't have $1 on it. So after losing $120, I figured the table was cold, so I got up and walked away.

I came back, and with my final 8 rolls, I lost $5.

Overall, I lost $25.

Just a note about the odds of life...

It's easy to present extreme odds of life as evidence of a creator. However, you must also apply the same logic in reverse.

Our sun sustains life on Earth. There are billions upon billions of stars in our galaxy -- each possibly capable of sustaining life in their own capacity. There are billions upon billions of galaxies in the universe. So, that is billions upon billions times billions upon billions of possible environments able to sustain life. What's a billion squared? I don't know, but it's a number so large we can't really comprehend it.

So, let's assume that the odds of life are around 100 billion to one (pretty liberal, I know). That would mean that for every 100 billion environments able to sustain life, there would be one of them which actually does sustain life -- and there are FAR more stars in the universe than 100 billion.

The point is: there are SO many stars in the universe, each possibly capable of sustaining life, that even if the odds of life are incredible, the colossal number of stars in the universe offset those odds significantly.