Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[Japhia888]

Hi

usually we, Theists, are attacked in various forms of being less reasonable than atheists, believing in things, that are irrational. What can most be observed, is atheists, skeptics, and agnostics, using very much effort to try to debunk theism, and mainly christianity, as a valid and reasonable world view and belief system. But not much effort is done to present a BETTER world view. So i want to defy you, to present a consistent, reasonable , honest world view based on atheism, relying reasons and arguments, which are BETTER than theism. And specially adressing following issues :

- please present a BETTER explanation for the existence of our universe, a cosmological argument, which is more rational than Theism gives us. Why is there something, rather than nothing ?
- please present a BETTER explanation for the fine-tuning of

- The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth
- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?
- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system :

considering :

to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right.

- please present a BETTER explanation than creation for the existence of life on our planet
- the existence of higher taxonomic groups, if you believe in common ancestry.
-please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.
-please explain, what meaning your life has. And if it has no reason, how can you live happy knowing, that your life is completely futile and senseless ?


Please AVOID starting beating and arguing why theism is not valid for you. What i wish to see, is a consistent, logical and reasonable world view based on atheism, which
does not take God into consideration, which explains all presented phenomenas in a way, that stands to rigorous examination and scrutiny.

 

[lrkun]

- please present a BETTER explanation than creation for the existence of life on our planet
- the existence of higher taxonomic groups, if you believe in common ancestry.
-please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

Science already addressed some of these issues.

 

[Japhia888]

- please present a BETTER explanation than creation for the existence of life on our planet
- the existence of higher taxonomic groups, if you believe in common ancestry.
-please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

But these have been addressed by science for a period of time now. :shock:

then you should be able to present them here. That is what i opened this thread for.

 

[Unwardil]

Stuff has always existed.

Some stuff is attracted to other stuff while some stuff repels other stuff.

When enough stuff combines, new properties emerge as a result.

Continue until life happens.

 

[Japhia888]

Stuff has always existed.

Some stuff is attracted to other stuff while some stuff repels other stuff.

When enough stuff combines, new properties emerge along with the new stuff.

Continue until life happens.

Stuff has always existed ? how do you bring this idea in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics ? Based on that law, if " things " always existed, the universe would have to be already in a state of heath death.

 

[australopithecus]

to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done.

:facepalm:

Seriously, this groups catchphrase should be "Calculating the odds of something after the fact is stupid".

As for you questions, all of them have been answered ad nauseum. I suggest you first visit here:
http://www.talkorigins.org

Then proceed from there. Your inability to do your own research into the subjects is not a decent enough reason for us to have to babysit you through things that are readily available to you online or in libraries.

how do you bring this idea in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics? Based on that law, if " things " always existed, the universe would have to be already in a state of heath death.

Evidence for this claim?

 

[Unwardil]

Well, when I say stuff, I'm talking much much simpler than even heat energy. Heat is a very evolved form of stuff. The bit of the universe that blew up when the big bang happened was already a highly evolved form of stuff and it's very likely that what started during the big bang will go to heat death, but the bits of stuff which got mixed together in that explosion will be more highly evolved forms of stuff.

So in short, it wouldn't have gone to heat death because the second law of thermodynamics is an emergent property of our universe's arrangement of stuff. Different laws of physics wouldn't create heat death, but heat crush, if say, radiant energy was weaker than gravity. A universe like that would just keep getting hotter and more concentrated.

But that doesn't mater, the point is, it doesn't matter how engineered our big bang verse may appear if there were infinite chances to get this kind. Just like old galaxies are far less ordered than our galaxy, so too could universes form in the same way, the trouble is, we can't actually leave and go look, so it'll all have to be figured out through inference. But none of this speculation is precluded by what we already do know for fairly certain.


ALSO (to answer the other bits more specifically about life)

The molecules for RNA were present on earth when life started, again, stuff combining following it's own emergent rules. RNA strands form on their own around deep sea heat vents, bigger blobs of RNA eat smaller ones creating natural selection and that's as far as my understanding on abiogenesis goes. I don't really need to understand it though, it's all stuff recombining it's self into new forms. That's the key.

Same thing with Evolution. New stuff following it's own emergent rules.

Which brings me to the meaning of life, or my own. Am I just stuff following rules? Probably, but part of having a highly developed brain is that I don't feel like I am, even if I probably am. Does this fill me with existential malaise? Not really. My purpose is what I make it while I have the capacity to do so.

 

[lrkun]

I'll try to address the issue one at a time. However, I do hope you won't be offended with respect to the scientific data.

1. Explanation for the existence of life on our planet.

a. Origin and nature of biological life

The exact mechanisms of abiogenesis are unknown: notable theories include the RNA world hypothesis (RNA-based replicators) and the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics).

Commentary

Science does not claim to know how life on our planet started, however, it suggests the rna world hypothesis and iron-sulfure world theory as an alternative.

RNA World Hypothesis

The RNA world hypothesis proposes that a world filled with life based on ribonucleic acid (RNA) predates the current world of life based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and protein. RNA, which can both store information like DNA and act as an enzyme like proteins, may have supported cellular or pre-cellular life. Some hypotheses as to the origin of life present RNA-based catalysis and information storage as the first step in the evolution of cellular life.

The RNA world is proposed to have evolved into the DNA and protein world of today. DNA, through its greater chemical stability, took over the role of data storage while protein, which is more flexible in catalysis through the great variety of amino acids, became the specialized catalytic molecules. The RNA world hypothesis suggests that RNA in modern cells, in particular rRNA (RNA in the ribosome which catalyzes protein production), is an evolutionary remnant of the RNA world.

Iron-sulfur World Theory

The iron-sulfur world theory is a set of proposals for the origin of life and the early evolution of life advanced by Gà¼nter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer. The theory proposes that early life may have formed on the surface of iron sulfide minerals, hence the name. It was developed by retrodiction from extant biochemistry in conjunction with chemical experiments.

Conclusion

If you click the link, you'll learn what science says. I suggest you browse them.

 

[australopithecus]

After rereading the OP i just want to point out something:

Theism =/= creationism. Debunkiing creationism =/= attacking religion.

You need to seperate the 2 concepts.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

I would like you to specify what you mean by a "better" explanation. I can offer my definition.

We are trying to explain event E. We have two mutually exclusive explanations A and B.
The probability of E, given that A is true, is P(E|A).
The probability of E, given that B is true, is P(E|B).

If we know that P(E|A) > P(E|B), can we say that A is the better explanation? Obviously not, because the probability of A can be much lower than the probability of B. To determine the better explanation, we must compare P(A|E) and P(B|E). The higher conditional probability is the better explanation.

I made a video about this, called "Is fine tuning good evidence for god?". In the video I also present a challenge to all theists using any kind of fine tuning argument.


The conclusion of the video:
Given that fine tuning exists (actual fine tuning, not the kind that occurs due to our incomplete models), the probability of god's existence is approximately:
P(G)/[P(G) + P(N)]
where,
P(G) = the (prior) probability of god's existence
P(N) = the probability of fine tuning occurring naturally

In order for the fine tuning argument to work, the ratio P(N)/P(G) must be low. If you're trying to make such an argument, you must first show that it is.

 

[lrkun]

2. The existence of higher taxonomic groups, if you believe in common ancestry.

Define what this higher taxonomic group is? What do you mean?

 

[lrkun]

4. please explain, what meaning your life has. And if it has no reason, how can you live happy knowing, that your life is completely futile and senseless ?

Meaning of life

At the end of the 20th century, based upon insight gleaned from the gene-centered view of evolution, biologists George C. Williams, Richard Dawkins, David Haig, among others, conclude that if there is a primary function to life, it is the replication of DNA and the survival of one's genes.

how can you live happy knowing, that your life is completely futile and senseless ?

Hehe, this also applies to you. However, I for one live a normal and ordinary, yet happy lifestyle. It's a choice.

 

[lrkun]

3. please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

Developmental psychology

Piagetian stages of cognitive development

Main articles: Jean Piaget and Theory of cognitive development

Piaget was a French speaking Swiss theorist who posited that children learn through actively constructing knowledge through hands-on experience. He suggested that the adult's role in helping the child learn was to provide appropriate materials for the child to interact and construct. He would use Socratic questioning to get the children to reflect on what they were doing. He would try to get them to see contradictions in their explanations. He also developed stages of development. His approach can be seen in how the curriculum is sequenced in schools, and in the pedagogy of preschool centers across the United States.

Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory

Main articles: Lev Vygotsky and Cultural-historical psychology

Vygotsky was a theorist from the Soviet era, who posited that children learn through hands-on experience, as Piaget suggested. However, unlike Piaget, he claimed that timely and sensitive intervention by adults when a child is on the edge of learning a new task (called the "zone of proximal development") could help children learn new tasks. This technique is called "scaffolding," because it builds upon knowledge children already have with new knowledge that adults can help the child learn. Vygotsky was strongly focused on the role of culture in determining the child's pattern of development, arguing that development moves from the social level to the individual level.

Ecological Systems Theory

Main article: Ecological Systems Theory

Also called "Development in Context" or "Human Ecology" theory, Ecological Systems Theory, originally formulated by Urie Bronfenbrenner specifies four types of nested environmental systems, with bi-directional influences within and between the systems. The four systems are Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, and Macrosystem. Each system contains roles, norms and rules that can powerfully shape development. Since its publication in 1979, Bronfenbrenner's major statement of this theory, The Ecology of Human Development[3] has had widespread influence on the way psychologists and others approach the study of human beings and their environments. As a result of this conceptualization of development, these environments , from the family to economic and political structures , have come to be viewed as part of the life course from childhood through adulthood.

Attachment theory

Main article: Attachment theory

Attachment theory, originally developed by John Bowlby, focuses on open, intimate, emotionally meaningful relationships. Attachment is described as a biological system or powerful survival impulse that evolved to ensure the survival of the infant. A child who is threatened or stressed will move toward caregivers who create a sense of physical, emotional and psychological safety for the individual. Attachment feeds on body contact and familiarity. Later Mary Ainsworth developed the Strange Situation Protocol and the concept of the secure base. See also the critique by developmental psychology pioneer Jerome Kagan.

Unfortunately, there are situations that inhibit a child from forming attachments. Some babies are raised without the stimulation and attention of a regular caregiver, or locked away under conditions of abuse or extreme neglect. The possible short-term effects of this deprivation are anger, despair, detachment, and temporary delay in intellectual development. Long-term effects include increased aggression, clinging behavior, detachment, psychosomatic disorders, and an increased risk of depression as an adult.

Nature/nurture

Main article: Nature versus nurture

A significant issue in developmental psychology is the relationship between innateness and environmental influence in regard to any particular aspect of development. This is often referred to as "nature versus nurture" or nativism versus empiricism. A nativist account of development would argue that the processes in question are innate, that is, they are specified by the organism's genes. An empiricist perspective would argue that those processes are acquired in interaction with the environment. Today developmental psychologists rarely take such extreme positions with regard to most aspects of development; rather they investigate, among many other things, the relationship between innate and environmental influences. One of the ways in which this relationship has been explored in recent years is through the emerging field of evolutionary developmental psychology.

One area where this innateness debate has been prominently portrayed is in research on language acquisition. A major question in this area is whether or not certain properties of human language are specified genetically or can be acquired through learning. The empiricist position on the issue of language acquisition suggests that the language input provides the necessary information required for learning the structure of language and that infants acquire language through a process of statistical learning. From this perspective, language can be acquired via general learning methods that also apply to other aspects of development, such as perceptual learning. The nativist position argues that the input from language is too impoverished for infants and children to acquire the structure of language. Linguist Noam Chomsky asserts that, evidenced by the lack of sufficient information in the language input, there is a universal grammar that applies to all human languages and is pre-specified. This has led to the idea that there is a special cognitive module suited for learning language, often called the language acquisition device. Chomsky's critique of the behaviorist model of language acquisition is regarded by many as a key turning point in the decline in the prominence of the theory of behaviorism generally. But Skinner's conception of "Verbal Behavior" has not died, perhaps in part because it has generated successful practical applications.

Mechanisms of development

Developmental psychology is concerned not only with describing the characteristics of psychological change over time, but also seeks to explain the principles and internal workings underlying these changes. Psychologists have attempted to better understand these factors by using models. Developmental models are sometimes computational, but they do not need to be. A model must simply account for the means by which a process takes place. This is sometimes done in reference to changes in the brain that may correspond to changes in behavior over the course of the development. Computational accounts of development often use either symbolic, connectionist (neural network), or dynamical systems models to explain the mechanisms of development.

child development theories with respect as to how a child learns or acquires knowledge.

Ecological Systems Theory

Main article: Ecological Systems Theory

Also called "Development in Context" or "Human Ecology" theory, Ecological Systems Theory, originally formulated by Urie Bronfenbrenner specifies four types of nested environmental systems, with bi-directional influences within and between the systems. The four systems are Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, and Macrosystem. Each system contains roles, norms and rules that can powerfully shape development. Since its publication in 1979, Bronfenbrenner's major statement of this theory, The Ecology of Human Development has had widespread influence on the way psychologists and others approach the study of human beings and their environments. As a result of this influential conceptualization of development, these environments , from the family to economic and political structures , have come to be viewed as part of the life course from childhood through adulthood.

Piaget

Main articles: Jean Piaget and Theory of cognitive development

Piaget was a French speaking Swiss theorist who posited that children learn actively through the play process. He suggested that the adult's role in helping the child learn was to provide appropriate materials for the child to interact and construct. He would use Socratic questioning to get the children to reflect on what they were doing. He would try to get them to see contradictions in their explanations. He also developed stages of development. His approach can be seen in how the curriculum is sequenced in schools, and in the pedagogy of preschool centers across the United States.

Piaget Stages

Sensorimotor: (birth to about age 2)
During this stage, the child learns about himself and his environment through motor and reflex actions. Thought derives from sensation and movement. The child learns that he is separate from his environment and that aspects of his environment,his parents or favorite toy,continue to exist even though they may be outside the reach of his senses. Teaching for a child in this stage should be geared to the sensorimotor system. You can modify behavior by using the senses: a frown, a stern or soothing voice,all serve as appropriate techniques.

Preoperational: (begins about the time the child starts to talk to about age 7)
Applying his new knowledge of language, the child begins to use symbols to represent objects. Early in this stage he also personifies objects. He is now better able to think about things and events that aren't immediately present. Oriented to the present, the child has difficulty conceptualizing time. His thinking is influenced by fantasy,the way he'd like things to be,and he assumes that others see situations from his viewpoint. He takes in information and then changes it in his mind to fit his ideas. Teaching must take into account the child's vivid fantasies and undeveloped sense of time. Using neutral words, body outlines and equipment a child can touch gives him an active role in learning.

Concrete: (about first grade to early adolescence)
During this stage, accommodation increases. The child develops an ability to think abstractly and to make rational judgements about concrete or observable phenomena, which in the past he needed to manipulate physically to understand. In teaching this child, giving him the opportunity to ask questions and to explain things back to you allows him to mentally manipulate information.

Formal Operations: (adolescence)
This stage brings cognition to its final form. This person no longer requires concrete objects to make rational judgements. At his point, he is capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. Teaching for the adolescent may be wideranging because he'll be able to consider many possibilities from several perspectives.

Vygotsky

Main articles: Lev Vygotsky and Cultural-historical psychology

Vygotsky was a theorist who worked during the first decades of the former Soviet Union. He posited that children learn through hands-on experience, as Piaget suggested. However, unlike Piaget, he claimed that timely and sensitive intervention by adults when a child is on the edge of learning a new task (called the zone of proximal development) could help children learn new tasks. This technique is called "scaffolding," because it builds upon knowledge children already have with new knowledge that adults can help the child learn. An example of this might be when a parent "helps" an infant clap or roll her hands to the pat-a-cake rhyme, until she can clap and roll her hands herself.

Vygotsky was strongly focused on the role of culture in determining the child's pattern of development. He argued that "Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals."

Vygotsky felt that development was a process and saw periods of crisis in child development during which there was a qualitative transformation in the child's mental functioning.

Attachment theory

Main article: Attachment theory

Attachment theory, originating in the work of John Bowlby and developed by Mary Ainsworth, is a psychological, evolutionary and ethological theory that provides a descriptive and explanatory framework for understanding interpersonal relationships between human beings. Attachment theorists consider the human infant to have a need for a relationship with at least one caregiver for normal social and emotional development to occur.

Erik Erikson

Main articles: Erik Erikson and Psychosocial development

Erikson, a follower of Freud's, synthesized both Freud's and his own theories to create what is known as the "psychosocial" stages of human development, which span from birth to death, and focuses on "tasks" at each stage that must be accomplished to successfully navigate life's challenges.

Behavioral Theories

Main article: Behavior analysis of child development

John B. Watson's behaviorism theory forms the foundation of the behavioral model of development.[9] He wrote extensively on child development and conducted research (see Little Albert experiment). Watson was instrumental in the modification of William James' stream of consciousness approach to construct a stream of behavior theory. Watson also helped bring a natural science perspective to child psychology by introducing objective research methods based on observable and measurable behavior. Following Watson's lead, B.F. Skinner further extended this model to cover operant conditioning and verbal behavior.

Other theories

In accordance with his view of a basic human motivation being the sexual drive, Sigmund Freud developed a psychosexual theory of human development from infancy onward, divided into five stages. Each stage centered around the gratification of the libido within a particular area, or erogenous zone, of the body. He also argued that as humans develop, they become fixated on different and specific objects through their stages of development. Each stage contains conflict which requires resolution to enable the child to develop.

The use of dynamical systems theory as a framework for the consideration of development began in the early 1990s and has continued into the present century. Dynamic systems theory stresses nonlinear connections (e.g., between earlier and later social assertiveness) and the capacity of a system to reorganize as a phase shift that is stage-like in nature. Another useful concept for developmentalists is the attractor state, a condition (such as teething or stranger anxiety) that helps to determine apparently unrelated behaviors as well as related ones. Dynamic systems theory has been applied extensively to the study of motor development; the theory also has strong associations with some of Bowlby's views about attachment systems. Dynamic systems theory also relates to the concept of the transactional process, a mutually interactive process in which children and parents simultaneously influence each other, producing developmental change in both over time.

The Core Knowledge Perspective is an evolutionary theory in child development that proposes "infants begin life with innate, special-purpose knowledge systems referred to as core domains of thought" There are five core domains of thought, each of which is crucial for survival, which simultaneously prepare us to develop key aspects of early cognition; they are: physical, numerical, linguistic, psychological, and biological.

dna not by design mutation. ^^

Mutations are changes in a genomic sequence: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation.

-oOo-

Please click the links for better understanding.

 

[lrkun]

Please AVOID starting beating and arguing why theism is not valid for you. What i wish to see, is a consistent, logical and reasonable world view based on atheism, which does not take God into consideration, which explains all presented phenomenas in a way, that stands to rigorous examination and scrutiny.

From the view point of an atheist

I live my life normally and according to my tested routine.

a. Wake up
b. Exercise
c. Work
d. Eat
e. Family time
f. Sleep

Science is not really a necessity for an atheist and it depends on the individual. I think you are asking a scientist instead of an atheist, because some atheists are not consistent, not logical, and not reasonable. However, the commonality is, god is not needed.

 

[Japhia888]

Your inability to do your own research into the subjects

Do you know me to assert, i did not do my homework ? I have not posted these questions because i am unsure about my position, but as base of a debate. If you do not want to debate these issues with me, just don't post here.

 

[lrkun]

Your inability to do your own research into the subjects

Do you know me to assert, i did not do my homework ? I have not posted these questions because i am unsure about my position, but as base of a debate. If you do not debate these issues with me, just don't post here.

Australopithecus gave a valid criticism. The members of this forum voice out their opinions. Do not deny them that.

Also, I gave you some references to check.

I know they are long and I am sure, better minds within this forum can answer your questions.

I just laid some basic grounds.

 

[Japhia888]

Well, when I say stuff, I'm talking much much simpler than even heat energy. Heat is a very evolved form of stuff. The bit of the universe that blew up when the big bang happened was already a highly evolved form of stuff and it's very likely that what started during the big bang will go to heat death, but the bits of stuff which got mixed together in that explosion will be more highly evolved forms of stuff.

So in short, it wouldn't have gone to heat death because the second law of thermodynamics is an emergent property of our universe's arrangement of stuff. Different laws of physics wouldn't create heat death, but heat crush, if say, radiant energy was weaker than gravity. A universe like that would just keep getting hotter and more concentrated.

But that doesn't mater, the point is, it doesn't matter how engineered our big bang verse may appear if there were infinite chances to get this kind. Just like old galaxies are far less ordered than our galaxy, so too could universes form in the same way, the trouble is, we can't actually leave and go look, so it'll all have to be figured out through inference. But none of this speculation is precluded by what we already do know for fairly certain.

If you suggest a mechanism, which spawns out a infinite number of universes, and by accident a life permitting one, you would need to have a explanation for that mechanism. Do you have any ? Have you thought about that ?

The molecules for RNA were present on earth when life started, again, stuff combining following it's own emergent rules.

what kind of rules ?

RNA strands form on their own around deep sea heat vents, bigger blobs of RNA eat smaller ones creating natural selection and that's as far as my understanding on abiogenesis goes.

For the arise of a first cell, you need also information, and a language. What mechanism do you suggest to create information and language by natural means ?

I don't really need to understand it though, it's all stuff recombining it's self into new forms. That's the key.

How ? by chance ? or whatelse do you suggest ?

Same thing with Evolution. New stuff following it's own emergent rules.

how so ? could you define that a little more clearly ?

Which brings me to the meaning of life, or my own. Am I just stuff following rules? Probably, but part of having a highly developed brain is that I don't feel like I am, even if I probably am. Does this fill me with existential malaise? Not really. My purpose is what I make it while I have the capacity to do so.

But in the end, it will be completely meaningless then ? what difference does it make then, if you live a moral life of high standard, of like a complete jerk ? if we are all faded to death, and thats it then, it doesnt mind how you live today.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Do you know me to assert, i did not do my homework ? I have not posted these questions because i am unsure about my position, but as base of a debate. If you do not want to debate these issues with me, just don't post here.

There's no debate to be had, if your entire position is based on not liking the evidence presented by science and reason. If you eliminate every place where science makes theism look stupid, that STILL doesn't provide a single bit of evidence to support whatever it is you believe.

If you believe something, you should have evidence for it. I have never seen a single bit of useful or meaningful bit of evidence for any theistic belief, so I don't believe a bit of it. Science works, science actually presents evidence and answers questions. Religion does neither, so why bother with it? Just because science isn't perfect in its answers, it doesn't mean any reasonable person should turn to religion, since religion answers no questions at all.

 

[Jotto999]

God is not a plausible explanation for the universe to begin with. If science has an explanation with any plausibility at all, then it's already one-upped creationism. Which it does, quite reasonably.

OP, you need education. I know you think you're putting us under pressure by having us fetch you this information, but you could easily find it with google or something. Debating someone uneducated in the debate subject is useless, so I wouldn't bother here.

 

[Japhia888]

I'll try to address the issue one at a time. However, I do hope you won't be offended with respect to the scientific data.

1. Explanation for the existence of life on our planet.

a. Origin and nature of biological life

The exact mechanisms of abiogenesis are unknown: notable theories include the RNA world hypothesis (RNA-based replicators) and the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics).

Commentary

Science does not claim to know how life on our planet started, however, it suggests the rna world hypothesis and iron-sulfure world theory as an alternative.

RNA World Hypothesis

The RNA world hypothesis proposes that a world filled with life based on ribonucleic acid (RNA) predates the current world of life based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and protein. RNA, which can both store information like DNA and act as an enzyme like proteins, may have supported cellular or pre-cellular life. Some hypotheses as to the origin of life present RNA-based catalysis and information storage as the first step in the evolution of cellular life.

The RNA world is proposed to have evolved into the DNA and protein world of today. DNA, through its greater chemical stability, took over the role of data storage while protein, which is more flexible in catalysis through the great variety of amino acids, became the specialized catalytic molecules. The RNA world hypothesis suggests that RNA in modern cells, in particular rRNA (RNA in the ribosome which catalyzes protein production), is an evolutionary remnant of the RNA world.

Iron-sulfur World Theory

The iron-sulfur world theory is a set of proposals for the origin of life and the early evolution of life advanced by Gà¼nter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer. The theory proposes that early life may have formed on the surface of iron sulfide minerals, hence the name. It was developed by retrodiction from extant biochemistry in conjunction with chemical experiments.

Conclusion

If you click the link, you'll learn what science says. I suggest you browse them.

the link is about the meaning of life.

If you permit, i will quote from my personal virtual library :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/rna-and-the-origin-of-life-t106.htm

The immensity of the problem is rarely appreciated by laymen, and is generally ignored by evolutionary scientists, themselves. The simplest form of life imaginable would require hundreds of different kinds of molecules, perhaps thousands, most of them large and very complex. With respect to this point, Van Rensselaer Potter states, "It is possible to hazard a guess that the number is not less than 1,000, but whether it is 3,000 or 10,000 or greater is anyone's guess."2 This statement not only acknowledges the immensity of the problem, but also is a tacit admission of how little is really known or knowable about the problem.

In addition to these many molecules, which would include the large and complex protein, DNA and RNA molecules, each with up to several hundred subunits arranged in a precise sequence, the origin of life would require many complex and dynamically functional structures, such as membranes, ribosomes, mitochondria (or energy-producing complexes of some kind), etc. Furthermore, life requires marvelous coordination in time and space, with many regulatory mechanisms. To believe that all of this came about by mere chemical and physical processes, does indeed constitute an immense exercise of faith.

"the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life"

"Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. " It is an inept molecule," he explains, "especially when compared with proteins." Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who has probably done more research exploring the RNA-world scenario than any other scientist, concurs with Joyce. Experiments simulating the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life, Orgel says. "You have to get an awful lot of things right and nothing wrong," he adds." (Horgan, John [science writer], "In The Beginning ...," Scientific American, February 1991, p.103. Elipses in original).

"not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date"

"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences." (Dover, Gabriel [Professor of Genetics, University of Leicester], "Looping the evolutionary loop," Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Oxford University Press: 1999, in Nature, 399, 20 May 1999, pp.217-218)

"tthe RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved"

"Nevertheless, despite the fact that most scientists working in this field accept the validity of the idea, the RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved. For one thing, in almost 20 years only seven types of natural ribozymes have been discovered: two remove introns (parts of RNA that don't code for proteins) from themselves; four cut themselves in two; and one trims off the end of an RNA precursor." (Evans J., "It's alive - isn't it?" Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 2000, pp.44-47. http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2000/evans_may00.htm).

in front of the odds and difficulties, to believe in this scenario constitutes a enormous exercise of faith. What makes you be so credulous in such a improbable scenario ?