Creationism vs. Evolution

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SimLord the Great In virutally all aspects of live, evidence for creation exist, from the complexity of even the most basic living organism's DNA, to the complexity of the universe and the stars. First of all, looking at genetics. There are four basic parts to the human genome. Each one can only be linked only to one other. I forget the names of these parts, but for now bear with me. If you had an impossibly small strand of DNA containing only 12 pairs of these parts you could arange them in 8,916,100,448,256 ways, and thats an impossibly small amount of DNA, and to think this just happened?quote>

First of all, twelve units the four possible pairs (T, A, G, C) can be arranged in 4¹² ways... or 16,777,216 ways. Still a fairly large number (especially considering DNA is much longer than that), but five orders of magnitude lower than your figure.

Secondly, you're working with a logical fallacy here. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it has to have been designed by someone and can't have occurred naturally.

In genes and heredity as each generation passes, no information is added to the organism's genes. Information is only lost, this explains why as time goes on we see new diseases and deformities occuring in not only people, but in all organisms. Such errors in the DNA become more prominent when siblings or cousins produce offspring because of the similarities in the DNA and the errors in it.quote>

No information is "added" directly, but it is possible for information to be unintentionally duplicated (for instance, people with down syndrome have 47 chromosomes instead of 46) and for that extra information to then mutate into something else.

Sometimes, like in breeding dogs, information is removed to allow other features needed for survival of that organism in that particular habitat. Therefore, information is removed, not added, to make specific features more prominant. This is an example of natural and artificial selection, which many evoulutionists believe is evidence for evolution, which in fact it is not, because it only involves the gradual removal of information, which directly conflicts with evoulution. quote>

Natural selection generally occurs not by removal of information, but by changing of information. Let's look at this textually:

You have the word "board". It potentially evolves into "beard" if the o becomes unnecessary or detrimental- not into "bard". 

This is also an example for a young earth, between 6 and 20 thousand years old. This is because at the current rate of genetic decline if our earth were millions of years old most life, including humans would have gone extinct thousands of years ago due to genetic flaws.quote>

Genetic decline? Since when has there been genetic decline?

Second of all, in the universe when a star meets its doom, wether it be through a nova or a supernova, it takes the matter from three dead stars to gain enough mass to create a new star, which would eventually result in the destruction of all stars.quote>

Absolutely true. However, this does not mean that were the universe as old as scientists say it is that all the stars would be gone by now. Depending on its size, a star may live up to ten billion years.  So this destruction is a very slow process- and there's enough mass out there that we're nowhere near the end of the line. Saying the universe couldn't possibly have lived for 13 billion years is like saying a person couldn't possibly have lived for 13 years. Yes, we get more frail as we get older, but that person is still young.

[LB_Industries 4]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 I have seen the light^.quote>

 

The only and lonley FSM, the real truth

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: SimLord the Great In virutally all aspects of live, evidence for creation exist, from the complexity of even the most basic living organism's DNA, to the complexity of the universe and the stars. First of all, looking at genetics. There are four basic parts to the human genome. Each one can only be linked only to one other. I forget the names of these parts, but for now bear with me. If you had an impossibly small strand of DNA containing only 12 pairs of these parts you could arange them in 8,916,100,448,256 ways, and thats an impossibly small amount of DNA, and to think this just happened?quote>

First of all, twelve units the four possible pairs (T, A, G, C) can be arranged in 4¹² ways... or 16,777,216 ways. Still a fairly large number (especially considering DNA is much longer than that), but five orders of magnitude lower than your figure.

...

quote>

Thank you for confirming that figure Duke, I thought I was going mad for a bit there.  Five orders of magnitude is not exactly a trivial error, especially on such a basic statistical calculation.

There are also a number of faulty assumptions in Simlord's "guestimate".

Firstly it assumes the process is completely random. However the formation of biological polymers from their monomers follows the laws of chemistry which are not random. Neither is natural selection, which acts on the results, completely random. This produces a decidedly non-random result.

Secondly it assumes that there is only one outcome (order of monomers) that would work, ie that only one of those 16,777,216 combinations will result in a working polymer. However this is not the case.

Thirdly it assumes that a polymer similar in complexity to those we see today, is required on the first attempt, which it is not.

It also assumes single sequential trials, whereas in fact there would be many simultaneous trials (this reduces the odds considerably, especially when used in conjunction with the other points).

Put together, these false assumptions mean the "calculation" is a long way from accurate. Statistics rule number one - test your assumptions are valid. Rule number two - make sure your starting values are accurate. You can't do accurate probability estimates without them.

Originally posted by: SimLord the Great ...There are four basic parts to the human genome. Each one can only be linked only to one other. I forget the names of these parts, but for now bear with me ...quote>

They are called nucleotide bases and the four used in DNA are guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine. Guanine pairs with Cytosine, Adenine pairs with Thymine.

In coding DNA (dna that codes for a protein), each triplet of nucleotides specifies an amino acid (or a stop codon). With three nucleotides in a sequence and four possibilities at each nucleotide, this gives 64 ( or 4³) possible triplet permutations.  However there are 20 amino acids known to be used in proteins in living things, plus stop codons (for a total of 21). Only two amino acids are each specified by a single codon, methionine (AUG) and tryptophan (UGG). Three amino acids are each coded for by six codons - serine (UCU, UCC, UCA, UCG, AGU, AGC), leucine (UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG), and arginine (CGU, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, AGG).

Originally posted by: SimLord the Great

In genes and heredity as each generation passes, no information is added to the organism's genes. Information is only lost, ....

quote>

This is false.  At a casual glance my paragraphs above should indicate one<

[deadwoods 542]

Can I suggest anyone wanting to take a tilt at scientifically disproving the Theory of Evolution take a read through Sam's posts in this thread. They are quite comprehensive.

[LB_Industries 4]

I am sorry to say that but I can not follow the whole discussion here.

I thougth we left this discussion more than 100 years behind now.

For me as a european ( Germany ) i just can say that in our history the church ( katholic ) told us more that 1000 years how the world is

( about year 500 to 1800 ).

A Lot of people died in the fires of the holy church to let the sience come through and to watch the world with open eyes to find out how she really is.

To follow the bible word by word is really a done thing.

And now I see that overseas you really discuss if it could be that ID or creation is the thruth about earth and life

someone ever imagine what a world this would be if this is created ?

Really you all are free to say what ever you want but seriously do not return back to times where church was / made politic and sience

THIS IS PASSED and we were not were we are, even a discussion like this would not be possible if religion tries to explain the world it is a belive not more

so this is my opinion you can have others but pls be open

alternative to that again the link

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: deadwoods Can I suggest anyone wanting to take a tilt at scientifically disproving the Theory of Evolution take a read through Sam's posts in this thread. They are quite comprehensive.quote>

 

Up to a point, maybe. In the post above about DNA, there are a few 'may' and 'coulds'. Not exactly proof of anything. Qualifying things like that makes it speculation.

When it comes to DNA, few claim a higher platform than the oft-mentioned Mr Collins. I'll lean on his educated judgement, as I don't have the genetics background to dispute or back up any of it. No offense, Sam. I'm sure you understand. 

And still, the entire debate comes back to one point; genesis. Where does matter come from? I'll leave the theistic evolution people alone, as atheism is backed into a corner on this. If you start with the classical idea of "Big Bang', then where did that dimensionless point come from? I won't even get into the idea of the entire universe compressed into an area so small it has no dimension (and what about its mass?) but rather, where did it come from? 

Mathematically, 0+x=y doesn't compute. Neither does 0•x. Even if x= 13 billion years, the answer will always be 0. Matter doesn't spontaneously jump into being, and I've never heard it postulated that matter has an eternal nature. I have heard some theories involving dimensional collision, but that is truly a stretch. I'd like to see the proof that the 4th dimension coming in contact with a 5th or 10th dimension will spontaneously create matter, much less different elements. The old story that ends with 'No, go make your own dirt' still has truth.  Science makes many grand claims about evolution and the genesis of the universe, but cannot create matter of any kind, or explain its origins, to start with.

---

Originally posted by: LB_Industries A Lot of people died in the fires of the holy church to let the science come through and to watch the world with open eyes to find out how she really is.

quote>

 

(Warning: prepare to be angered)

When it comes to this issue, many focus on the Vatican as a figurehead for Christianity. It isn't. Through a great deal of history, the Catholic Church has been the greatest enemy of Christianity. A bit of heavy reading will illustrate the disparity: How The Irish Saved Civilization

by Thomas Cahill showed how a small sect of Irish monks protected ancient manuscripts from the Vatican, and preserved Scripture when the penalty for having them was death. True Christianity doesn't kill people for owning the Bible, and never has. One doesn't have to be a believer to understand that.

Catholicism fought scientific research when it felt its power was threatened. But that's them.  I would not (and will not) defend the Catholic Church for its actions, they appall me too.

When I use the word 'church' in a broad sense, I refer to the body of believers throughout humanity, not the Vatican Enrichment Corporation and its massively bloody hands.

[coolotter88 2]

No, evolution does not come back to genesis, you're just making that up.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Glad to see you back around, and in fine form my friend.

I go back to the very very beginning in order to establish where that famous-magically-enchanted-by-circumstances primordial soup came from. If we are byproducts of well-fermented soup, how did the soup get there?

[coolotter88 2]

it doesn't matter how the soup got there (it could have been mystery soup day!) but the fact that the matter is there, and in the end, life formed, be it open-faced-sandwich hypothesis or whatever, it just did. and from there, we gradually improve life to create us nerfect beings.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan I go back to the very very beginning in order to establish where that famous-magically-enchanted-by-circumstances primordial soup came from. If we are byproducts of well-fermented soup, how did the soup get there?quote>

Let's for the sake of argument say some deity put the soup there. Alright, now how did that deity get there?

The problem isn't at all solved by introducing a divine being or beings into the picture, it just takes it an extra step back, out of the scientific concrete and into the theological abstract.

You still have the problem of something coming from nothing, though. Now, the argument could be made "well, that doesn't apply to god. God is transcendent"... and a lot of people do make that argument. I would still point out, though, that it's making up an excuse in order to explain the unexplainable. It's not a testable hypothesis. We have no real reason to believe any such thing is true, but a lot of people choose to believe it nevertheless.... and it boggles me, personally. I just don't get why people would have absolute blind faith in such things.

In the end, I suppose it's a matter of personality. Some people *raises hand* are skeptics and won't believe anything unless you can show them evidence supporting your claim. Other people are willing to believe anything you tell them without reason. And then there are of course a lot of in-betweens.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 ... or whatever, it just did. quote>

 

How very scientific of you. Can I quote that for my Doctoral thesis? LOL!

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: manticorefanI go back to the very very beginning in order to establish where that famous-magically-enchanted-by-circumstances primordial soup came from. If we are byproducts of well-fermented soup, how did the soup get there?quote>

This is where scientists can offer their best theories on to what sparked life on this planet.. but unless we invent the time machine, we will probably never know. But then again we have no substantial proof that a creationist beginning to the Earth is any more plausible.

[Jazzmaster 716]

A while back we were discussing the evolution of life in Biology I Honors, and of course, seeing as our class was filled with one half strong atheists (pardon the spelling), one half strong christians, people started to bring religion...or a lack of, for that matter, into the mix.  Seeing as we can't discuss it in school, or science teacher merely stopped the class with a little discussion.  What I remember was something like this:

On one hand, all this stuff about the evolution of life we've come up with could be dead-on accurate...on the other hand, we could be so far off right now it's not even funny.  But the best thing about science is, it's open to anything...there are no rights and wrongs...only facts.

I'd say that's what seperates science from religion.  In a religion, you're basically spoon-fed all these beliefs, and tought that just about anything else is false.  In science, you're going on pure facts...which is why scientists don't believe in "Alpha, the Omega" ; there's no substantial proof to support it for them!  While I believe in God, and probably will for quite a long time, that is the truth...I really hope I didn't state the complete obvious in this post, but I just wanted to add something in that's, well, relevant.  Ya know, my "2 cents" (even though I've posted in this thread before) .  To each his own belief, that's what I say.

-Yoshi

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Up to a point, maybe. In the post above about DNA, there are a few 'may' and 'coulds'. Not exactly proof of anything. Qualifying things like that makes it speculation.

...

quote>

If that is your conclusion from what I wrote then you have misunderstood what I was saying. The words "may" and "could" in my post do not mean "might, but we don't really know" or "we think but have never seen this actually happen", which is apparently what you are taking them to mean.  The examples I gave are backed by substantial observation and evidence.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

When it comes to DNA, few claim a higher platform than the oft-mentioned Mr Collins. I'll lean on his educated judgement, as I don't have the genetics background to dispute or back up any of it.quote>

If you mean Dr Francis Collins, he seems to be a theistic evolutionist from what I've seen of his writings.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God (April 6, 2007) by Francis Collins

...Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

quote>

However from the rest of the article, he seems to be using "could[n't]" in the popular sense here.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

No offense, Sam. I'm sure you understand. 

quote>

None taken.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

(Warning: prepare to be angered)

When it comes to this issue, many focus on the Vatican as a figurehead for Christianity. It isn't. Through a great deal of history, the Catholic Church has been the greatest enemy of Christianity. A bit of heavy reading will illustrate the disparity: How The Irish Saved Civilization

by Thomas Cahill showed how a small sect of Irish monks protected ancient manuscripts from the Vatican, and preserved Scripture when the penalty for having them was death. True Christianity doesn't kill people for owning the Bible, and never has. One doesn't have to be a believer to understand that.

Catholicism fought scientific research when it felt its power was threatened. But that's them.  I would not (and will not) defend the Catholic Church for its actions, they appall me too.

When I use the word 'church' in a broad sense, I refer to the body of believers throughout humanity, not the Vatican Enrichment Corporation and its massively bloody hands.quote>

You mean to say that mere people can't actually decide what God did or did not say, and that one person telling another what exact part of scripture is the set in stone truth is just a load of hokey? That you can't actually rely on a single translation of a politically decided  book of texts?

Gosh, now you tell us.

[wir3d 2]

Well he did not want to go off topic and tell you guys that yet. I mean I have a lot of stuff I haven't said but I don't want to put in random comments.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I would like to add some points of my own to this discussion:

1. I am an atheist and proud of it. I believe that any theory or hypothesis (be it evolution, intelligent design, creationism, relgion) should be scientifically proven or disproven.

2. Evolution has more evidence than creationism. We can see some creatures adapting to their environment. We can see natural selection going on every day in the animal world.

3. There is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural 'master of the Universe' (or, if you want to put it this way, a god or gods). Most religious occurances can be disproven by science sooner or later.

4. The creationist argument that some creatures have systems that are too complex to be explained by evolution is incorrect in my opinion. No reputable scientist claims that they know everything and anything about the Universe. There are still gaps in current theories that must be filled in by revisions to them.

5. I challenge all the billions of religious people to find scientific evidence for god(s). If the evidence points unequivocally towards a creator, I will believe that -- but not before.

6. I believe that everyone has a right to have a belief, and so do I. I am only expressing mine here. No insults intended.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus I would like to add some points of my own to this discussion:

1. I am an atheist and proud of it. I believe that any theory or hypothesis (be it evolution, intelligent design, creationism, relgion) should be scientifically proven or disproven.

2. Evolution has more evidence than creationism. We can see some creatures adapting to their environment. We can see natural selection going on every day in the animal world.

3. There is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural 'master of the Universe' (or, if you want to put it this way, a god or gods). Most religious occurances can be disproven by science sooner or later.

4. The creationist argument that some creatures have systems that are too complex to be explained by evolution is incorrect in my opinion. No reputable scientist claims that they know everything and anything about the Universe. There are still gaps in current theories that must be filled in by revisions to them.

5. I challenge all the billions of religious people to find scientific evidence for god(s). If the evidence points unequivocally towards a creator, I will believe that -- but not before.

6. I believe that everyone has a right to have a belief, and so do I. I am only expressing mine here. No insults intended.quote>

And I challenge you to prove god doesn't exist. We'll find out when we die, and if we don't find out, that means god doesnt exist

[SimRabbit 48]

Patricius Maximus: Can we prove if god exists? We aren't sure.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 And I challenge you to prove god doesn't exist. We'll find out when we die, and if we don't find out, that means god doesnt existquote>

Originally posted by: SimRabbit Patricius Maximus: Can we prove if god exists? We aren't sure.quote>

Whether God does or does not exist is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, since it works with or without a God. ToE doesn't dictate to anyone that they must or must not believe in a God. None of its principles would need to be changed if that question was either proven or disproven.

Creation on the other hand requires a creator since the only thing that defines creation is the presence of a creator. Likewise the only evidence of design is the presence of a designer, not vice versa. So for creation a creator needs to be shown to exist, a creator does not need to be disproven in order to accept evolution.

I think that's a point that creationists sometimes miss, some seem to think accepting science means they must necessarily reject their religion. This may be so for some religions whose teachings conflict with scientific observations. Those religions may have a bit of explaining to do to their adherents. But many religions do not see their views as being at odds with science, at least most of the time.

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 And I challenge you to prove god doesn't exist. We'll find out when we die, and if we don't find out, that means God doesn't existquote>

But if God doesn't exist and you go into nothingness then you won't ever know that you didn't find out. And if God has decided that hell is never finding out if he exists, then anyone going to hell will never find out either even if God does exist. So death is no answer either. Since I'm atheist I'm not going to rely on death to give me any answers, there's better ways to find things out that mostly don't involve dying.

BTW this week's edition of New Scientist has an evolution special: New Scientist - 19 April 2008

[patriots_1228 51]

yea, of course evolution works with or without god, but how did the stuff that caused it get there? It may not be a god, it may be.

Something out there had to spark evolution, life, the world, the universe, and it was not the big bang. IMO there is either a god or some sort of super atom/particles we have not yet encountered. (The first being the religious side of my brain, the second the scientific side).

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 yea, of course evolution works with or without god, but how did the stuff that caused it get there? It may not be a god, it may be.quote>

That just raises a much bigger question, how did the God get there?

You can't explain away something seemingly impossible just by thinking up something even more impossible.

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 yea, of course evolution works with or without god, but how did the stuff that caused it get there? It may not be a god, it may be.quote>

That just raises a much bigger question, how did the God get there?

You can't explain away something seemingly impossible just by thinking up something even more impossible.quote>

Thats the problem with this discussion. No side can be right, because, in the end, we lack the brains/technology to find 100 percent veritable proof.

Of course, that doesn't mean that one solution makes much more sense than another

[Vandy 110]

Hello, All.

In light of the most recent comments in this interesting thread, may I be indulged to repeat part of a previous post?

Thank you.

The creationism vs. evolution debate is but one of the many, many questions on which man will not get an answer during life on earth.  The one scripture that keeps me (relatively) sane when I find myself trying to find REAL answers to these debates it this one:

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. "

Deuteronomy Ch 29: v 29.

Clarke's Commentary states (in part) the following concerning the interpretation of this verse:

"The simple general meaning seems to be this: "What God has thought proper to reveal, he has revealed; what he has revealed is essential to the well-being of man, and this revelation is intended not for the present time merely, nor for one people, but for all succeeding generations. The things which he has not revealed concern not man but God alone, and are therefore not to be inquired after."

This verse and my own personal faith get me through debates about creationism vs. evolution as well as all of the other isms vs. isms.

quote>

Regards,

Gary

[saltandsauce 0]

these are the arguments i absolutley cannot stand

stop the bible bashers and stop the raging hypocritical atheists who are trying to force their "non religion" on us is it really that important? religions biggest purpose is to bring people together (they ALL (except atheism) have gathering places of some sort)  lotsof people love to point out that religions mix like olive oil and syrup

is how the world began that important? the creation story works better because no time scale is involved and is explainable to children (who are most likely to ask)

you know there was a bang (where'd the bang come from?) hold on dear let me finish. and a great big pile of matter appeared. ( whats the matter?) and for a very long time about 15 billion  years later (did it get bored?) the matter cooled down and formed hydrogen and helium (what's that?) and through gravity this pulled itself together and... (relise the child is asleep) the creationism story works best for kids and its kinda like santa claus you get to realise ther is no magic when your older but being told when your five that santa doesn't exist and you just get to bug mum about what you want for Christmas. and yes your mother really did get you that jumper and blamed it on "old man fashion sense" so keep it that way.

in short its better for curious kids but you get to ruin it by telling them about evolution (i just did the big bang theory but you get the picture)

well for starters none of us were there so nobody will know for sure.

science stay 10 feet away from religion *whack* the notion is passed

[nazaguy 0]

I don't so much have a problem with atheism or religion as much as mocking the beliefs of others. Religious people need to remember things such as 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Atheists need to stop rallying around militants like Richard Dawkins. (although i enjoyed his books on science, i thought that the god delusion was retarded. no offence intended)

[Cypherus21 0]

This is why we will never know the answer: Mark 4:10-12: Jesus:  "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in "parables" so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving (hence never will see Heaven from Earth), and ever hearing but never understanding (hence, never understand our existence); otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.

The atheist dillemma always asserts that if God started everything, then who created God. This is a fallacy because it assumes for A = B, C = A. However, how can God be created? He wouldn't be God then. God always existed, he wouldn't come from anywhere. We are the product of the Big Bang - existing in space, time, and eternal energy. Since we know the universe is finite, then something had to create the Big Bang, and you have two choices: God or Naturalism. Nothing more, nothing less, no either/or fallacy.

If God is eternal and omnipresent, he is not bound by spacial restrictions which envelop our existence (time, energy, and space). That is, he is immaterial, and cannot be perceived, touched, and felt. If you existed without space/time, you'd be omnipresent, existing everywhere, and unseen. Hence, the reasoning for lack of "physical evidence" that atheists use to support their non-belief - they don't understand the concept of a God.

The Big Bang proves something existed without matter, and if time did exist before the Big Bang (eternity), we wouldn't have been created because an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang would never yield change.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Cypherus21 The atheist dillemma always asserts that if God started everything, then who created God. This is a fallacy because it assumes for A = B, C = A. However, how can God be created? He wouldn't be God then. God always existed, he wouldn't come from anywhere. quote>

But see, that's the problem. You can't apply logic to god since a transcendent being would transcend logic. As such, god violates the laws of math and science. Which would prove he doesn't exist, but oops, he's immune to those too!

That's my real problem with god, and with supernatural beliefs in general. It's too much of a catch-all. No rules govern such things, they can quite literally do anything they want. It's silly, but the question "could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?" effectively demonstrates the problem here. There's nothing god can't do, and at the same time, both "yes" and "no" as answers to that question mean there's something god can't do. God is paradoxical.

The explanation religiously inclined people tend to give is something like "well, god is a higher being than us. Our minds are not capable of comprehending his existence." I offer a much simpler explantion: "it's all a load of bullcrap". Solves the problem much more effectively.  Compare:

God exists- there's all these crazy problems we can't possibly find solutions to due to our finite comprehension

God does not exist- there's no problem, it all works out fine

I think I prefer the latter option, eh? 

If God is eternal and omnipresent, he is not bound by spacial restrictions which envelop our existence (time, energy, and space). That is, he is immaterial, and cannot be perceived, touched, and felt. If you existed without space/time, you'd be omnipresent, existing everywhere, and unseen. Hence, the reasoning for lack of "physical evidence" that atheists use to support their non-belief - they don't understand the concept of a God.quote>

But see, there's a contradiction here. God is supposed to be infinite, beyond our understanding. How then, can you fault atheists for not understanding him?

Really, the key here is a difference in thinking-

Theist: "I don't understand god, but that doesn't bother me, I believe he exists"

Atheist: "I don't understand god, no one understands god, therefore why should I believe he exists?"

And in policy-

Theist: I'll assume it's true unless I have evidence that it's false

Atheist: I'll assume it's false unless I have evidence that it's true

Basically it boils down to whether you're naturally willing to believe things or whether you're naturally a skeptic. It also depends on how much expectation of understanding you have. For the average person, there are a lot of things they don't understand, and things which it doesn't really bother them that they don't understand because they don't care. But for an intellectual (or, bluntly, a nerd), lack of understanding is much more bothersome since they understand more in general and have a much higher desire for understanding. "Eh, god did it" isn't an acceptable explanation for such people. They want a rational explanation, and if one can't be found, the conclusion is simply "we don't know", not "ooh, god must be responsible!"

Which brings me to the point about the Big Bang- admittedly, there is a problem with something seemingly coming from nothing. But, unlike with god, there is actual empirical evidence suggesting that such a thing occured. The universe is expanding, and the rate at which it is doing so and the rate at which its expansion is accelerating are both measurable- as such, it is simple math to clock it backwards and definitively say that about 14 billion years ago it w