100 thoughts on “The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]

  1. Absurdity of Atheism
    If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.

    Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah (swt) is far above what the heretics say.

    For further research – click >>> http://www.al-islam.org/tradition-of-mufaddal-pearls-of-wisdom-from-imam-jafar-as-sadiq

  2. I will listen to evolution when they can perform a scientific experiment creating a planet from nothing. Create a microorganism from from nothing. Then let's all wait for it to evolveeee. Into a person.

  3. An atheist's response is always, "we got lucky". You'll never get lucky when the odds of 10 to the power of 160 is working against you.

  4. Wouldn't you assume that perception of design outside of biological cause is biased as we are biological entities.
    Illusion of grandure to propose knowledge outside of knowledge.

  5. THERE IS A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT TO PROVE THAT THERE IS NO FIRST CAUSE.
    Without using your mind solidify the salt in a bowl of salt water. That will do it better than all these debates.

  6. wow infinity.getting to see some of what is beyond is magnificent.my theory the creator made us through him that he is who we are.i believe in the holy spirit,grace goes through us.

  7. I had high hopes for professor Rana as I am a staunch creationist. His opening statement was convincing and challenged the origin of life theories currently promoted in academia. When challenged on Genesis 1 and the days mentioned, Rana struggled to justify his position that the days somehow represent ages or long spans of time. It was embarrassing especially since his opponent rightly saw thru Rana's weak defense of the day age hypothosis. Note, the audience chuckled at Rana's discomfort as he sorta hemmed and hawed in his poor response. It is clear from scripture, both from the writer of genesis and from the words of Christ, that God made all the creation in 6 literal days. And if one takes the time to do some math, using the various genealogies contained therein, you get an age of the earth I the six thousand range. Not 4.5 billion years.

  8. So, a god made a man and a woman with all the flaws and didn`t realise that humans are inquisitive.
    A talking snake told Eve the truth. This god punished them by giving them agriculture and the snake was punished by being made to crawl on it`s belly. Is that not what snakes do ?
    This god then gave himself as a sacrifice to himself to forgive his creation of his own mistakes.
    Then again, he already knew that before it all happened didn`t he ?

  9. This is off topic, but all the friends and family of the moderator who laughed at his jokes and never pulled him aside for a reality check did him a major disservice by leaving him with the misapprehension that he was in any way funny or witty.

    #cringe.

  10. Origin of life is solved theoretically: very soon a paper will be published (I hope during 2018) and will show HIGHLY PROBABILITY PROVEN EVENTS/REACTIONS LEADING TO DARWINIAN EVOLUTION AND ULTIMATELY – LIFE. Why do I know it? Because I'm preparing this paper right now for publication. For those which are curious, it is not "RNA world" advocating paper.

  11. Evolutionary change by natural mechanisms can be observed. Please show us your "designer', whom you claim to be orchestrating it all. (even though he/she/it doesn't seem to be needed for it)

  12. Fuz Rana's first presentation was excellent but he just lost me in saying that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. He said he believed the Bible but he just showed he doesn't. God cannot be limited by the human reasoning. God is omnipotent and omniscient nothing is impossible for Him. God in Revelation is the light of heaven, He was the light on earth during the first 3 days of creation and then on the 4th day he created the sun and the moon "for seasons, for days and for years". This was necessary because God already knew what would take place on the earth from creation until the end of the world as we know it. Throughout the Bible God uses time measured by these two great lights and their rotations and influences on the earth in its solar rotation of the sun. God measures time by them, as he created time for man. The earth is only 6,000 years old not 4.5 billion. So much ignorance of God's power and wisdom is evident in this lecture/debate.

  13. First of all nether evolution or ID can say anything about origins these are the wrong subjects to discuss origins which already tells me there is a lack of understanding on these subjects. How many times are people going to make this mistake that evolution some how explains origins when it doesn't and nether does having this opinion that life is designed. Stop using these as a way to fight over origins when we still haven't worked this out just yet.

  14. This has the be the first debate that I have seen where the debaters were actually respectful toward each other. Well done gentlemen.

  15. If you question evolution , You are not a fucking educational institute you are a fucking institute of child abuse

  16. You can try your best to make evolution appear scientific. But, the bottom line is: nothing exploded, for no reason. Everything in the universe was formed by this explosion, for no reason and with no influence. Trillions of years later, life formed by accident. Trillions of years later, complex life was formed by accident. Never observed. No way to prove it happened. The mathematical odds are off the charts. No proof of change of kind from one species to another. Then you have "the aliens did it"!
    You have the mermaid theory.
    https://youtu.be/v-Fzf8CLg1s
    This is all from SCIENTISTS, who I assume, don't want to rock the boat. Scientific? Are you kidding me? Aliens and mermaids?

  17. Does a prosthetic hand or leg come about by Intelligent designer and Creator ? The human hand and leg is more complex in design than the prosthetic hand and leg.

  18. I'm surprised Dr. Michael Ruse struggles with the problem of evil and suffering. Since this is the first problem that is addressed in the Bible, in Genesis during the Fall of Man. Hence, came the problem of evil and suffering. Its a lot more feasible to see issues of reconciling new scientific discoveries with the Bible than anything else. Even many of these issues have been addressed here by Dr. Fuz Rana.

  19. Suppose God could be defined as Quantum consciousness as Dr Goswami suggests. Creative evolution by downward causation… ‘and God said’ … just wondering if this might be so.

  20. A Creator God is a logical necessity based on the contingent nature of the physical universe.

    Because the physical universe is contingent, it is not eternal. (Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of origin, cessation, or change, in effect, eternity means no past, present, or future; it is an eternal “now,” but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in creation, living, changing, and dying, ergo matter and energy are not eternal) Every physical (natural) entity is contingent and therefore has a cause, and because causal chains cannot be of infinite length, because that would be an effect without a cause, if you were able to follow the causal chain back to the very beginning where the very first physical entity was effected into being, it's cause HAD to be supernatural, since the “natural” was not yet in existence, something cannot come from nothing, something cannot “be” before it “is,” and nothing can create itself (not even God). The reality of the impossibility of infinite causal chains also refutes any notion of a “multiverse” that some have posited as an explanation of the eternality of the universe, and it also nullifies the question “where did God come from?” that some have posed when God is explained as the ultimate cause of the universe.

    Others (like Stephen Hawking) have foolishly said that we cannot talk about the origins of the universe since time itself did not exist before the universe began to expand at the Big Bang, so we just cannot know. However, since time is the progression of sequential relationships between two or more contiguous events, if there was indeed a point when there was no such thing as time, but assuming the universe did exist in some previous form, be it as a singularity, a quantum vacuum, or whatever, then because there was no time, then there would be no progression from the universe’s previous condition from “A” where there was no time to, “B” where there is time. Hence, if there was a point when there was no time, then there never would be time unless some supernatural (outside of nature) force created it.

    Contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings in the ultimate sense. Frederick Copelston once said, “If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not sheep. Therefore if you add up contingent entities, you are still left with contingent entities, and not an eternal one”: therefore there must exist a necessary, non-contingent, supernatural being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent, physical beings are derived (Hebrews 11:3).

  21. Darwin's classic work did not offer any explanation of the origin of life itself, keeping only to the origin of species from descent with modification. In fact, even modern evolution has nothing definitive either.

  22. This was a set-up to allow intelligent design proponents to more easily present their errata on naive audiences. Several things are indications of this:
    1) It's at BIOLA University.
    2) Professor Ruse is a philosopher, not a biology scientist, and is notoriously quirky & easy to "bum rush" in debate when defending evolution, despite it being his philosophical specialty area.
    3) the molecular biologist is an Intelligent Design "gritter", somewhat equivalent to a well trained pool hustler.
    It's the only strategy the Creationists have left now that gene science & DNA has put the nail in the coffin of evolution deniers.

  23. Beware if you expect a science-based debate!
    By the way, BIOLA University stands for their former name—"Bible Institute Of Low Angeles.

  24. There is nothing scientific about the so-called "naturalistic approach" as espoused and demanded by Michael Ruse. That is a man-made imposition upon science by those hoping you are too ignorant to realize that virtually all of the great scientific achievements before and since Darwin have been made by Christians, and generally by creationists. Einstein is a notable exception, but even he was not so ignorant to rule out God.

    Now, name one contribution to science in the name of, or in support of evolution. You cannot. All evolutionists do is waste taxpayer money.

    Dan

  25. Laws: if they are natural laws, it imply there is a law giver , and there ARE natural laws of conscience.Bby adulthood you know certain thing that need no instruction such as a persons rights ,. without being instructed we know it is wrong to poke out some ones eye., and would feel violated is this was done to us. therefore we feel guilt , when we do so. . Conscious guilt is not of this world , It is a portion of God's spirit, given us a conception and will be recalled, and judged in Judgment." 2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." If you violate natural law you will be judged by that law.
    Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

  26. Anyone else extremely bothered by the woman who called the Big Bang “evolution’s miracle”? When will people get it through their head that biology and cosmology are completely different?

  27. Its a miracle! The only miracle is how Andy Dufrence managed to stick the poster back on the wall from inside his tunnel. If Michael Ruse didn't spot that massive flaw in the story then he isn't much of a philosopher

  28. Here is the question. If it's no intelligence behind the universe, how did intelligence came into the universe in the First place. Let's just say for the sake or argument that God Did Not play a part in creationing the universe. How did life start is the first question I must ask. Why did it start, why is man more intelligence then any other animal on this planet. Since this universe have no intelligence cause why do atheist pride themself on how smart they are in scientific research, compared to dumb religious people who believe and Intellectual Being created all of this. Surely if it was NO intelligence in the universe how did intelligence arrive out of Nothing don't that work against the laws of nature and physics.

  29. Sticking the shallow word god in sentences makes the word meaningless. Thank you, keep up the display and wonder where the flock dissapeared too.

  30. Phylogenetics has proven evolution true over the last few decades and intelligent design died of embarrassment after the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial of 2005. Why debate any more?

  31. If humans can do it, it proves intelligent agency is necessary.
    If humans can't do it, it proves intelligent agency is necessary.

    Wtaf?!?!

  32. if a christian asks "where did the universe come from?",I'll answer "your question implies that you claim that the universe was created by god. so, where did god come from??".

    if a christian asks "where did the 1st thing come from?",
    i'll answer "your question implies that you claim that the 1st thing was created by god. so, where did god come from??".

    if a christian claims "life must come from life.",
    i'll respond "so the life of god came from what??".

    if a christian claims "the eye is so sophisticated that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.",
    i'll respond "god is more sophisticated than the eye, 2 the point of bein' able 2 create it, so he must have been created by an intelligent designer.".

    if a christian claims "the cell is so complicated & so sophisticated that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.",
    i'll respond "god is more complicated & more sophisticated than the cell, 2 the point of bein' able 2 create it, so he must have been created by an intelligent designer.".

    if a christian claims "a watch must have been created by humans.",
    i'll respond "1st, a watch is created from things that already exists on earth, this is different from your claim that god created the universe out of nothin', & 2nd, how about a rock or a bird, must they have been created by humans??".

  33. One of the major problem of the scientific search for origin of life (not only in origin of life) is "THE FASHION effect" which play a significant role. Ones a hypothesis gain popularity, it is turned into a BOOST ROCKET for publications. We have almost 30 years domination of RNA WORLD hypothesis which is NOT CHALLENGED for so long despite the fact that this hypothesis has lots of problems. From ~ 2015 a new more sober view comes to this problem rejecting RNA world and presented the RNA-PEPTIDE world as a better scenario for the origin of life. Just recently, (Oct 2018) was published a hypothesis showing more likely scenario where for sure RNA world is no need anymore, please look: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30279401
    This hypothesis shows how everything may come naturally on its own place explaining the formation of the ribozymes and the genetic code, just if we follow the natural processes and simple logic. It is very imporatnt to say: this hypothesis shows at what point, an event COULD LEAD TO FORMATION OF LIFE AND DARWINIAN EVOLUTION.

  34. Expert in Intelligent Design? LMAO! I didn't know there are degrees in "Bullshitting". Fuz is an expert at it. He like all apologists, go on and on and on with pure "drivel" till your head starts bobbling like a 6 month old and you just cave to his bullshit just to shut him up.

  35. If intelligent design was a scientific theory then it would be disprovable. If you believe intelligent design is a scientific theory, they what would disprove it?

    If intelligent design isn't a scientific theory then it's not really intelligent, it's just rote belief.

  36. The first speaker spent half of his time saying nothing but just babbled on. What a moron. He has an I problem. Must have said I over a hundred times. His opinion is not really important. Get to the facts.

  37. We see time and time again throughout history how miraculous NATURE can be. Wouldn’t it be more likely nature created life, then some supernatural event that has NEVER been seen in ANY form in the entire history of man? Its fact that when humans don’t understand something,they fill in the gap with God. Throughout history we have used God to explain what we don’t understand,but eventually we figure it out. I have NO DOUBT humans will discover the origins of life at some point.

  38. For fuck’s sake, how many times does this need to be said? Evolution is not about the “origin of life”! It is about how life CHANGES!! If you want to debate about the origins of life, talk about abiogenesis!

  39. Urggggg… US and Islamic Creationism…. Both have the same idiotic arguments both claim the same crap concerning the origin of human life… But they hate each other…

  40. Here's the argument, folks! Neither valid or having true premises, but hey, what else do you expect from creationists?

    Premise 1: evolution deals with the origin of life
    Premise 2: evolution cannot explain the origin of life
    Conclusion: therefore, life was intelligently designed

  41. I would put money on the vast majority of creationists in this comment section coming from either Africa, the middle east, or the USA……basically locations known for their poor education systems and overly religious populations

  42. I wish they would keep philosophers out of these debates. They rarely know ehat they’re talking about.

  43. Dr Ruze completely mischaracterizes the whole ID theory. That it’s an anti scientific view modeled only after Genesis 1 and a bunch of fundamentalist Christians. Many athirst scientists believe the best explanation for life is ID.

    And he thinks ID treats origin of life as a miracle he clearly doesn’t understand the probabilistic odds of it happening in a primordial soup. Belief in that bunk science requires more of a belief in miraculous hokey pokey mysticism than ID, which follows a standard pattern of philosophical reasoning that is identical to reasoning deployed by Darwin to defend evolution from his critics.

  44. Michael Ruse is being disingenuous when he claims that only philosophical naturalism (is this a philosophical presupposition that could be better described as unintelligent design?) can only provide the necessary philosophical framework for doing scientific research. He must know that the philosophical or intellectual framework for the emergence of modern science in the late 16th and 17th c. Europe was not naturalism but Christianity, notably the understanding of God as a rational being who created everything out of nothing, which meant that his creation could be rationally investigated. Another contributing factor was the Christian dogma of the fall of man, which lead to the great methodological innovation aimed at eliminating errors by doing experiments, collecting data, and publishing research as a way of cutting back on speculative thought. This resulted in the following innovations: modern experimental and empirical science was promoted as a method for ameliorating the fall of man – epistemic reliability reigning in error-proneness. Mathematics was used to analyse the Book of Nature as authored by a rational, creator God. In Kepler’s words, scientists would be: “ Priests of the most high God with respect to the book of nature.” Galileo made a similar point when he stated that God’s universe could be explored through mathematics, which meant that scientists could think God’s thoughts after him. The Christian emphasis on the ethic of hard work meant that experimental scientific research (getting one’s hands dirty) as a virtue. Doing science was seen as a “Christian” way of improving people’s lives. Bacon particularly promoted this idea. I could go on but time and space prevent me from extending the analysis.

    In this respect, Dr. Rana and other Christians who debate with naturalists about the origin and history of life are remiss in not using the argument I’ve outlined above (which is more elaborately sustained in the books listed below). Christians should be doing more history of science, which would result in Ruse being unable to use his argument from naturalism as a way of bracketing out the God hypothesis for engaging with scientific research.

    Reading

    Harrison, P. (2007) The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Modern Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Harrison, P. (Ed.) (2010) The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)

    Harrison, P. & Roberts, J. N. (Eds) (2019) Science Without God? Rethinking the History of Scientific Naturalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

  45. As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

    Francis S. Collins M.D. Ph.D. (born April 14, 1950) is a physician-geneticist noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his administration of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and current director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
    "God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures", interview by Laura Sheahen, Beliefnet (undated)

  46. Life on earth "Could be an experiment being conducted by a grad student from Andromeda just to see what happens!' Brilliant line and that is what I take away from this lively give and take! Well done gentlemen! We will never KNOW IT ALL! Have a piece of cheesecake occasionally and be compassionate to each other! LAUGH AND LOVE and be grateful to be alive! PEACE!

  47. Intelligent consciousness of souls is the engine or driver of evolution through many birth experiences according to the universal law of action and reaction. Intelligent consciousness grows and expands through experiences and takes on bigger and bigger bodies. Science simply cannot analyse intelligent consciousness and its impact on evolution.

  48. I have listened to many debates and have read Darwin's Origin, and Dawkins, Eldrige and others and have found them very lacking, however I think this debate is a bit of a stacked deck, Russ is obviously not of the same level of expertise as is his opponent. The panel debate with Behe and Meyer et al matched to worthy opponents was better and fairer

  49. Evolution says nothing about origin of life. And there are quite a lot of hypotheses for origin. For example most popular DNA from RNA. It is most popular because we learned for a fact that RNA can appear spontaneously by subjecting molecule to dehydration, hydration and radiation, all of which are available in earth during first billion of years.

    Other than that, Theist argument is god of the gaps fallacy. Nothing more.

  50. The arrogance of evolutionists is appalling. Like leftist politics. They can't even admit id is possible, given the evidence.

  51. Every debater that supports evolution or spontaneous life origin needs to be debating a panel of elite doctors of chemistry, physics and biology and anatomy. This shit needs to end for good and taken out of of our schools forever

  52. Whether it's one or thousands of designers, life was definitely designed. The cell and DNA is to complex to arisen by natural chemical causes. Molecules don't have feelings and don't care about being assemble in a way to be considered alive. Molecules are perfectly fine being not assembled. Something assembled them together. Its fact not opinion

  53. If your not arguing against design why waste your time trying to debate a professional chemist? It's stupid to come to a debate for evolution and off bat your admitting design is a possibility. You kind of lost the debate in your opening statement🤣🤣

  54. He says I'm not going to be boxed in like that shows science doesn't wont to explain their theory at all. They want to just indoctrinate you with the theory of evolution. How can you talking about random mutations and not talk about cells and DNA and the origin of it. Evolutionists are nothing but children telling a story. What ashame. This guy loses the argument in his opening statement with the other side saying a word yet.

  55. Think about how stupid this sounds. The first cell ever used sun light for energy through photosynthesis. Sun light is the easiest way to get energy. That's why plants are so successful. If the first cell only needed light for energy why would it need to evolve? The organism has everything it needs and doesn't need complexity to get better. The animal kingdom needs plants to survive. Animals are parasitic whether it's a carnivore, omnivore or herbivore. They are all parasites because they can only live by consuming other living things. Why would a cell need to evolve into a form of living where the climate could destroy your energy supply? That's like humans moving into the middle of the Sahara desert with no water or plant life for miles around. It's stupid. It's much easier to just live closer to your energy source. Humans have been on this earth all this time yet our skin exposed to the sun damages the skin. Why haven't we evolved yet?

  56. How can these idiots go through extreme measures to create early earth situations and have researcher interference and still fail to create and think the natural environment did it all on it own. Conditions just don't bring forth life. It takes intervention to put these things in place.

  57. If figured this what go to the bible. Attacking religion doesn't discredit intelligent design. Infact religion has zero to do with intelligent design and the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Only thing that needs to be the focus of evolutionists is to tell us scientifically how the first Cell with DNA assembled itself through natural causes. They solve that then we can move forward with evolution talk. Evolution talk needs to be removed from mainstream education until this has been figured out

  58. Wtf is this guy talking about? Defend yourself using science to support your beliefs in evolution. He's not talking about none of the scientific points the chemist is bringing up

  59. Sexual orientation is human sociology issue and has zero to do with the origin of life and how the first cell created itself from chemicals. People evolution is a lie. You have to be a fucking ignorant idiot to not see this guy and many more like him have no evidence that supports this belief of life without intelligent design.

  60. Intelligent consciousness is the engine or driver of evolution. Evolution occurs according to the universal law of action and reaction of our individual soul intelligence or intelligent consciousness responding to the physical world, gathering intellect and taking on different bodies accordingly, along the spiritual plane.
    Our consciousness therefore is ever expanding and evolving. This is how the universe was created by God so that souls will have a dynamic medium with dualism, to experience and evolve. Thats the purpose of creation and it is because of love for the souls by God. Without creation, souls will be stuck in a state of limbo.
    Darwin explained the mechanism of how evolution occurs in the physical world along the physical plane but he could not explain why this occurs because Science simply cannot analyse soul intelligent consciousness and God's super-intelligent superconsciousness. . God therefore exists.
    He is the super-intelligent superconsciousness everywhere from which everything emanated from and without which nothing can exist. Our individual Soul Consciousness is always expanding or evolving on the spiritual level towards the Superconsciousness and this takes place over billions of years and millions of births to realise what is the absolute truth.

  61. The obsession to destroy religion/s has redefined the concept of creation. Even the greek mythology conceived "Chaos" as the father of all "divinity".

  62. The INVISIBLE "God" is just the leading character in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY and religions are nothing but money making scams.

  63. The INVISIBLE "God" is just the leading character in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY and religions are nothing but money making scams.

  64. The INVISIBLE "God" is just the leading character in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY and religions are nothing but money making scams.

  65. Satan puts glyphosate in our food, aluminum oxide in our skies, and 5g millimeter waves in our brains… then asks, why does your God allow cancer. Pathetic.

  66. In the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded into everything, then everything rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits, which made dinosaurs. Sure.

  67. Either the Cowardly lion has no business being in any educational Department whatsoever, or he is lying. My guess is..lying whore.

  68. So if blind, unguided, prebiotic nature with limited options for chemistry and physics did in fact manage to synthesize the first living cell on Earth from simple molecules like H2O, O2, CO2, CH3, CO, PO4, N2, NH3 HCN, etc, HOW MUCH MORE LIKELY IT SHOULD BE that intelligent chemists and biochemists – with all the target molecules firmly in their sights AND equipped with state of the art technology AND instant access to all relevant molecules, compounds, and minerals – be able to finesse chemistry and physics in the lab to synthesize a living, metabolizing, dividing cell! … BUT WHERE IS THIS CELL?

    …try 😯 nowhere 😨 😬

  69. Infinite past
    For the smugly ignorant cynic: Darwinian evolution is not a theory of origins. To suggest it is a counter theory to Creation is the most pernicious lie spread by self defined, semi literate apes, to justify their self defeating worldview, that says mindless matter is the only game in town!
    No amount of science or conclusions from Nobel laureates will convince the close minded denier of the need for an immaterial, non contingent cause beyond space and time. For those with an open mind, atheism's materialistic foundational philosophy must be grounded in an infinite past. Without the dimension of time, absolutely nothing physical could exist now or ever. That is, events involving matter/energy must occur in time. Recall e= mc^2
    Consider the infinite regress fallacy:  why an infinite past is impossible:
    1} imagine an infinitely long ladder where each rung represents a unit of time or a previous event. To reach the present one would have to have ascended an infinite number of rungs for an infinite amount of time to reach the present. An infinite past if it  could exist, would be an actual infinite whereas an infinite future would be a potential infinite. Just as we could never reach an infinite future likewise we could never transverse an infinite number of past events or states in either direction to arrive at the present. (infinite regress fallacy)

    2} consider another analogy where a shopkeeper  has an infinite amount of stock. He comes in early  to do  a stocktake before opening. Could he ever reach  such a time for the store to open? Obviously not.
    No amount of fantasizing about infinite past universes, quantum vacuums or virtual particles can explain the consequences of  a finite past other than Creation ex nihilo. Only within theism  do we have the intellectual framework to explain existence ftom non existence. Matter, as the effect can only come from an immaterial  mind as the ultimate act of causation. .

  70. Abiogenesis supporters need to be reminded that if you dismiss all other explanations but your own, yet have no evidence to back it up, and are left to imagine how your explanation nevertheless accounts for the phenomenon, you're making an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *