Religion – your views

[Xenon]

Firstly, I don't dismiss evolution because of a lack of understanding regarding the so-called theory. I'm made to denote it for the reason that I've studied the promotional propaganda of evolution and found them illogical, empty, false.

Science can provide credible facts that suggest theories are correct. Scientists have studied the formation of animal cells, for example, that allow them to conclude transformations or mutations. The religious aproach, on the other hand, does not have anything to back it up aside from one artificial book that entales the apparent 'happenings' of one man. You simply cannot call label evolution as illogical, empty and false because it is far more concrete.

Secondly, the earth being suited for humans and we being suited for it is much the same thing. This only validates my point: this world and human life were designed for each other. Although there is maybe a little truth in what you said, since the earth did come first.

It is not the same thing. The Earth, being a geophysical body, cannot transform itself to suit the living organisms that inhabit it. Living organisms, conversely, can mutate to cope with the Earth's measures.

No, because as I said, if the *First* Cause must have a cause that defeats the point of *First* Cause, which is why the nature of the First Cause should logically be like what I described in my post.

That's not logical; that's a wild half-baked statement. How can something "defeat the point" of cause? Are you suggesting a god-like creature was poofed out of complete nothingness?

[timoo]

I agree with 'Mister Dark':

[Tobbe]

Why can't the First Cause be the Big Bang?

As I understand, evidence for the Big Bang is an "expansion" of the universe. I haven't looked into it much myself so I'm not sure if that evidence has true scientific grounds or not. For sake of argument let's there *was* an explosion somewhere in the universe that continues to cause expansion even today. Even so this doesn't necessarily negate God. However, if you're going to put down an explosion to *the* First Cause, it's like adherring to the first point: everything magically exploded out of nothing. This is logically ridiculous.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the origin of the Universe, or that "something exploded" out of nothing. Research the theory before you comment on it. The Big Bang Theory explains the current state of the Universe. It is based on evidence (like all scientific theories), and there's an overwhelming consensus among scientists that the Big Bang Theory is correct, at least to some degree. Predictions made by this theory have also turned out to be accurate, like the prediction that there should be background radiation in the Universe, and that far away galaxies should move away from us. Admittedly, the Big Bang Theory doesn't have anywhere near as much evidence supporting it as, say, the Theory of Evolution, but it is definately based on all the available evidence, and it's most likely correct, at least to some degree.

The Big Bang Theory explains that the current state of the Universe is due to the rapid expansion of spacetime (yes, space and time are linked, Einstein proved this. Time doesn't extend further back than the Big Bang because before the expansion spacetime was compressed into a singularity) from a quantum singularity. We do not know what came before the Big Bang, because the Big Bang Theory doesn't mention this. But filling this gap in our knowledge with a deity is terrible logic, it sickens me! Unfortunately, this is what a lot of religious people do, and have done for centuries. Remember that before we discovered germs and viruses, a vast majority saw illness as a punishment from god. Now we know that this is not the case. Filling a gap in our knowledge with god is plain stupid.

Someone who says that the Big Bang is the First Cause must, if their argument is pressed, be made to admit that they feel the entire Universe is the work of chance, yet, as I said, the chances of this are so infintesmal as to be ridiculous. Perfectly functioning organisms randomly appearing for no reason? Entire world(s) that seem designed to the purpouse of supporting the life of those perfectly functioning organisms just because... why? Morality and the knowledge that "this action is wrong" and "this is right" simply appearing out of nowhere, whether in a moment or over billions of years? The First Cause cannot be the Big Bang because that would illogical. The First Cause can only be God because that is the truth.

Stop talking of this infamous "first cause" as if it were a person, it looks stupid. Like I've explained, no scientist claims that the Big Bang was the origin of neither space, matter nor time. We have no idea if the fact that the Universe supports life is due to random chance or not. Next, much like Monty Python, you jump from the Big Bang Theory to something completely different. We do not know whether a life-friendly Universe is random or not, but we do know that the organisms on this planet are not. Once you have one self-replicating molecule natural selection, the mechanism that drives evolution, takes hold, and eventually leads to the complex multicellular organsism we have here on Earth today. I won't explain this in great detail now, but morality is an evolved trait. Science knows how and why we got it, and guess what: There is no need for a god or Bible. Your final statement of this paragraph causes me to doubt your motives. It appears to me that you want to give the impression that your belief in god and rejection of Evolution has a scientific and logical basis, but the nature of this statement strongly suggests that you haven't started out with the facts and drawn conclusions from them, like a scientist should, but that you have started out with your conclusions (jeezes iz lord!!!) and tried to apply logic to prove them.

It is indeed the most plausible argument, but there are still flaws in it. The 'First Cause', you say, created everything, yet any matter is impossible without a cause. So what do you suggest created this 'First Cause' or God? You can't be suggesting this just materialised out of nothingness because as you said, it's ridiculous to believe nothing could produce something... so you've essentially subverted your own point.

No, because as I said, if the *First* Cause must have a cause that defeats the point of *First* Cause, which is why the nature of the First Cause should logically be like what I described in my post.

Aside from the fact that such a first cause might not have been neccesary (the laws of cause and effect might not have applied to the singularity that expanded in the Big Bang, or anything that might have existed before that), what makes you jump to the conclusion that your infamous "first cause" is god. It's classic "God of the Gaps" logic, and as I've said before, it's utterly stupid to insert god into any gaps in our knowledge.

Oh, the stupid! Oh, the logical fallacies!

Firstly, you seem to dismiss evolution because you don't understand it, which is of course ridicolous. You simply sit in your armchair and declare that the human body is too complex to have evolved from the first replicating molecules present . How this has happened isn't even unknown to science; it's been explained in great detail! I suggest you watch the following playlist on YouTube: Think about it! It's a brief and simplified explanation of abiogenesis and the evolution of multicellular life, and hopefully it will make you realise that your argument of irreducible complexity is a load of bull.

Your most ridicolous statement, however, is that that the Earth is very well suited for human life is a valid argument for the existance of a designer. It's actually the other way around: The Earth is not perfectly suited for humans; we are perfectly suited for it. This is due to the mechanism driving evolution; natural selection. If you don't know what it is, or don't fully understand it, watch this video: Natural Selection Made Easy.

If you still think creationism is teh win, please explain to me why, and I will be more than happy to destroy your arguments.

Tobbe

Firstly, I don't dismiss evolution because of a lack of understanding regarding the so-called theory. I'm made to denote it for the reason that I've studied the promotional propaganda of evolution and found them illogical, empty, false.

What promotional propaganda? I've never seen any billboards saying "You are an ape! This is a fact!" anywhere. If by propaganda you mean the extremely large body of evidence for Evolution that exists, the huge amount of peer reviewed literature that supports the Theory of Evolution, or the fact that as good as all biologists in the world support it, then please show me exactly what you think is "illogical, empty and false" about it.

Secondly, the earth being suited for humans and we being suited for it is much the same thing. This only validates my point: this world and human life were designed for each other.

No it doesn't. How the hell did you reach that conclusion?

The reason for the "maybe" is simple. In all the media, which many have been subject to the influence of throughout childhood, evolutionists are presented as rational, scientific and intelligent. Likewise, in all the nature shows or in anything that references science, evolution is often posited as well. This gives the impression that evolution, an unproven, so-called theory, is somehow inseperable from science. In other words, the impression given throughout the media is that if one dares question belief in evolution, one has denied logic and denied the truth. This is re-enforced by Christians being presented as ignorant, blindly believing and in many cases downright evil. The basic message is: the ones who believe evolution, which even Darwin admitted as having no grounds beyond "circumstancial evidence" (though even this is an understatement), must automatically be intelligent, rational, capable of weighing logical argument and so on. Christians are automatically either evil demonizers of other religions, homosexuals and science (by which they mean evolution).

If someone has been subject to this message throughout their childhood, its only natural that they would be positioned into believing evolution, or at least having doubts about God. After all, no reference is made to the hundreds of Christian scientists who all agree that their work points towards the existence of God. No reference is made to the Christians who spoke out bravely against slavery, or condemned Nazism, or who began charities and orphanages, or who disproved evolution constantly, or were demonized and sentenced to death because they wore crosses around their necks. The only Christians allowed to be seen must be fanatics, or madmen, or people who for some reason need to "believe" for the sake of believing. Likewise, the only people pointing to atheism in the media must seem rational and intellectual. This propaganda is largely the reason why evolution is so popular, and the same goes for the Big Bang.

Okay, these paragraphs are so full of bullshit that I'll have to deal with them later in a separate post. Don't think you're getting away with this nonsense, though!

As for the after-life, another thing that apparently "goes against science", look at the amount of people who have had some connection to an unknown world. Whether it's a ghost sighting, or suddenly feeling "one with the universe" or very powerful experiences felt by people with *no signs of mental disorder*, the fact is there's a lot of evidence supporting something beyond our reality as well. A wise evangelist once described the case of someone overwhelmed in the nature and entertainments of this world as a person examining a pearl, when, if he could only life up his gaze, he could see the sight of an entire sparkling ocean.

A lot of people who claim to have connection to another world are scammer and liars. People who genuniely think they have connections to an unknown world may have hallucinations or delusions. Remember, the brain is a very powerful organ which is more than capable of fooling itself (ever heard of the placebo effect?), distorting, misinterpreting, or even making up signals from the sensory organs. The fact is that there is no real evidence suggesting that there's an afterlife, or a soul that's separate from the body or anything like that.

After all, what's more real? A temporary world or an eternal one?

Neither.

Best wishes, Tobbe

[Xenon]

Wow Tobbe, that post is in a field of its own.

[Shawn]

I was never forced into Christianity. I had a choice, and my choice was to follow God. Many great things have happened in my life, and many prayers have been answered. I have been blessed greatly, and that's something you can't prove wrong.

[Tobbe]

Wow Tobbe, that post is in a field of its own.

I was never forced into Christianity. I had a choice, and my choice was to follow God.

(Almost) no Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. in the world will tell you that they were forced into their religion. The question is whether you actually had a full and free choice, or just the illusion of one. Are your parents Christian? If so, have they ever taught you about Christianity?

If your parents are Christian, I propose an interesting experiment. Sit down with them, tell them that you have a confession to make, and then say the following: "I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god anymore." Then observe their reaction.

Many great things have happened in my life, and many prayers have been answered. I have been blessed greatly, and that's something you can't prove wrong.

You can't prove anything by that either. Many great things have happened in my life too, and many of the things I've wanted have happened. Hell, when I was younger and still believed in god, some of my prayers were even "answered" (or rather, what I prayed for happened). Yet I don't believe in any puppetmaster in the sky. And I ask you this: I'm sure many of your prayers have been "answered", but how many haven't? It depends on what type of things you generally pray for, but I'd say it's a safe bet that a lot of them haven't been.

[Mister Dark]

What's with all the insults? I never insulted you. But if you're so eager to try and humiliate the opposing side, let's look at the logical arguments *you've* posited. Tobbe, you have an interesting way of debating. Firstly, I demonstrated that it is God, not the Big Bang, that is the origin of the Universe. In regards to my points as to why God is the First Cause and not the Big Bang, the only reply you've given is

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the origin of the Universe,

Ok, that's nice Tobbe. Since this thread is entitled "Religion- your views", aren't you going to try and come up with something to actually invalidate my arguments as to the existence of God? Or are you going to give lectures about the Big Bang Theory and how it DOESN'T explain our origins?

Stop talking of this infamous "first cause" as if it were a person, it looks stupid.

it's utterly stupid to insert god into any gaps in our knowledge.

filling this gap in our knowledge with a deity is terrible logic, it sickens me!

Then adding that it's somehow "stupid" and even sickening to believe in God without explaining why or how you could possibly reach that conclusion? The fact is you jump from one place to the next suddenly... sort of like an "evolution of gaps".

When I talked about how the earth and humans are designed for each other, you could only say

The Earth is not perfectly suited for humans; we are perfectly suited for it.

Later on you said:

Your most ridicolous statement, however, is that that the Earth is very well suited for human life is a valid argument for the existance of a designer

Which is the same thing you said above: "believing that is STUPID! That's why it's WRONG!"

When I said that I believe evolution to be false, the only reply you could up with for this was:

you seem to dismiss evolution because you don't understand it

When I stated I had looked at evolution logically and found it to be false, you simply got angry and said

You are so full of crap! Ignorant morons like you really piss me off.

How very scientific of you. It's almost as scientific as this:

You simply sit in your armchair and declare that the human body is too complex to have evolved

you're too brainwashed by religious dogma to listen to reason.

Well, yes, Tobbe, I know full well that, after having studied evolution and observing the "evidence" evolutionists provided, I found it false. What's your point? What kind of argument is this?

I demonstrated some logical points as to why God *does* exist which you have not answered- you've only tried to brush them aside by denying them, talking to me as if I turn to God as a hypothesis of all existence rather than the logical and proven Cause.

it's utterly stupid to insert god into any gaps in our knowledge.

Yet even one of the atheists here said:

That is probably the most reasonable and thought out arguement for god exisiting that I have seen,

Who are you to say that *I'm* the one who's brainwashed after you must resort to such irrationality and underhanded tactics as these?

Oh, but there's still your grand conclusion to follow:

If you still think creationism is teh win, please explain to me why, and I will be more than happy to destroy your arguments.

Let's look at the brief history of our argument logically for a moment: notice that the only replies you've really given to any of my arguments are "that argument's stupid", "that argument's ridiculous", "you simply declare such and such, which is of course illogical", "well you have no right to talk about evolution. Since you disagree with it, you obviously don't *understand* it" and even "you're BRAINWASHED"!

The fact is you have insulted my arguments, tried to make fun of me, stated that I insert God because I can't think of any other solution to existence, when I actually demonstrated how it's impossible God *couldn't* be the Cause!

Oh, the stupid! Oh, the logical fallacies!

Yeah, tell me about it. Now, are you done with the insults? Then let's go back to the basics. I made an argument, it's your job to invalidate it, if you're interested in trying to prove whatever it is you want to prove. My argument was, very briefly: there are three ways the Universe could have begun, the only possible way is by means of a First Cause because the first two ways are impossible, as I demonstrated. Understand? I also showed why the third way the Universe could have begun (First Cause) is the only logical solution. I also showed why the First Cause does not need another cause, and why the First Cause can be *eternally existing*, and how the First Cause can exist without a beginning. Now, if you can't disprove or invalidate or bring up any logical problems (not insults) with this logic, we'll move on.

Here's the second part of my argument: I showed why the First Cause must be an Intelligent Designer -that is, God- since the thought of random creation is illogical. Now this was all outlined in my *first post*. If you cannot reply to this logic beyond more insults and stating that I have simply posited God due to "gaps in knowledge", then the religious case is practically already won. So, I await your logical answer.

[Mister Dark]

Science can provide credible facts that suggest theories are correct. Scientists have studied the formation of animal cells, for example, that allow them to conclude transformations or mutations. The religious aproach, on the other hand, does not have anything to back it up aside from one artificial book that entales the apparent 'happenings' of one man. You simply cannot call label evolution as illogical, empty and false because it is far more concrete.

The Bible has long lists of geneologies, eye witnesses and even records the exact dates many of the events occured as evidence. In fact, it is not even one book, but something compiled of numerous books, historical records and ancient writtings, some of which date back thousands of years and all of which support each other in pointing to the one and only Truth. Countless times people have tried to disprove the Bible and they always fail- history and geography both support the Bible, just like biology supports the existence of an Intelligent Designer. You cannot label evolution as anything *but* illogical, empty, and false, with no supporting evidence beyond a history of having to adapt itself to support the arguments of Christians- which, I might add, designed the original geological table.

It is not the same thing. The Earth, being a geophysical body, cannot transform itself to suit the living organisms that inhabit it.

If I ever said this, please show me the quote. I did say, however, that the earth was created with future human beings as its inhabitants in mind- by God.

That's not logical; that's a wild half-baked statement. How can something "defeat the point" of cause? Are you suggesting a god-like creature was poofed out of complete nothingness?

I already explained this.

Atheists (no offence to anyone ) often say that the First Cause must also have a cause- however, this is basically like saying number 2 is possible: the whole point of the FIRST Cause is that it is the First. If the First Cause is something of Infinite power, then the First Cause can override the laws of time and dimension as we understand them. In other words, a Cause that brought Time and dimension into existence, capable of existing outside of, or without them.

Since this argument has come up a lot of times, I want to make something very clear to everyone: Since number 1 and number 2 cannot be possible, the First Causes must not follow their illogical rules: the First Cause cannot be of such a nature as to 1: come out of nothing or 2: have always existed within the scheme of Time. To limit the First Cause to such laws, rather than achknowledging that things like time and space were designed *by* God as a tool, is to undermine the whole foundation of the argument positing First Cause.

ps excuse the double post

[Tobbe]

I've never tried to disprove your attempt to logically prove that there is a god. I only lectured you (and spiraldoor) on what the Big Bang Theory actually is, and why it doesn't explain the origin of life, the Universe and everything. To tell you the truth, there is no reason why the Big Bang Theory and a god cannot co-exist, because the Big Bang Theory only explains the current state of the Universe, not the origin of it. So I've never tried to use the Big Bang Theory to disprove any deity. I simply stated that it is ridicolous to use god as an explanation for things we do not yet know, such as the origin of the Universe. People have done this for centuries to natural phenomena such as lightning, lunar eclipses and disease, and have been proven wrong every time. No atm detectable evidence for a natural cause does not equal positive evidence for the existance of god, and I hope you understand this.

Contrary to what I might have given you the impression of, I actually have no problem with you believing in god. That is, as long as you realise that your beliefs are faith-based, not rational and scientific. When you so matter-of-factly state that god is the only logical reason for the Universe to exist, a red warning light goes off in my head (I call it the 'Bullshit-o-meter').

Now to the thing I've actually tried to disprove all along: Your view that Evolution is false. You haven't given me much to go on so far, as pretty much the only thing you've done is to state that you think Evolution is false and based on promotional propaganda (yes, it's a conspiracy which incorporates pretty much every biologist, paleontologist, geologist and biochemist in the World!). You have presented two arguments supporting Creationism, though, and I've answered both of them (although you claim I haven't. You've even quoted me out of context! Not cool, man!). The first one being the argument that the human body is too complex to have slowly evolved. This is called the argument of irreducible complexity, and it's very often used by Creationists. The complete evolution of humans from simple vertebrates is very well documented, and we have a very complete fossile lineage for human evolution. I do not have the experitse neccesary to fully explain this, but I linked you to a YouTube playlist (which you propably dismissed as propaganda if you even watched it at all).
Your second argument was the one about Earth and humans being perfectly suited for one another (actually, humans are only well adjusted to tropical climates). This is where you quote me out of context. In your previous post you claim that instead of giving you any reasons for dismissing this I simply stated that it was the other way around; that humans have evolved to be perfectly suited for tropical climates on Earth. I did in fact explain that this is inevitable due to the mechanism of natural selection which drives evolution. It's the reason why (most) extant species have been perfectly suited to their environment throughout the history of life (remember, environments can change vastly over time). The video I linked you to in this case explains how natural selection works, and it is very easily accesible for laymen, something the other videos weren't.

You say you've dismissed Evolution as false because of lack of evidence. What I ask you to do is to present to me exactly why you find it false. I will then try to explain as best I can.

About the insults; that's the way I roll. I don't call you a deluded moron because I disagree with you, I call you that because that is atm my honest opinion of you. See, my secular parents brought me up to be honest.

To summarize: It is unfair that you critisise me for not answering your "proof" of gods existance, because I have never tried to do this (I believe Hunch pointed out some logical fallacies in your post, though, a few pages back). I have no problem with you believing in god (I will never respect you for it, though), but I react in a negative manner when you claim that its existance is the only logical possibility. What I have actually tried to answer is your ludicrous claims that Evolution is a big lie, when it is one of the most supported scientific theories there is, based on mountains of supportive evidence. It is one of the pillars of science and the foundation on which modern biology is built. I don't know why you have a problem with it, as there is absolutely no reason why it and god can't co-exist either.

Best wishes, Tobbe

PS: Do you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? Just wondering.

EDIT: Orly? The Theory of Evolution has no supporting evidence? I guess the by now enormous fossile record, phylogenetics, several dating methods including several extremely accurate radiometric methods which all support each other and the actual observation of Evolution happening (just to name a very few), don't count as supporting evidence, then.

EDIT2:

you're too brainwashed by religious dogma to listen to reason.

Again, quote mine. Here is the full sentence:

Sadly, I suspect you're too brainwashed by religious dogma to listen to reason.

I'd say that's a quite significant difference.

[spiraldoor]

I only lectured you (and spiraldoor) on what the Big Bang Theory actually is, and why it doesn't explain the origin of life, the Universe and everything.

What? I don't remember being lectured.

[Xenon]

@ Mister Dark: I too wasn't trying to undermine you in any way, in case you thought otherwise. Many members of this community repeatedly misconstrue my comments as stubborn, cruel and thoughtless, when in fact I have no such intentions when composing messages. Apologies if you found my posts insulting or disturbing in any way.

You've actually presented a clear argument, but I would still like to outline some points that maybe you should take into consideration before deeming the religious approach to be far more reliable than the opposing scientific approach. Firstly, the world's technological advance had allowed us to explore alternative means of creation, whilst in biblical times (and indeed times of first creation and so on) this science and technology did not exist. Do you not think this lack of human intelligence could promote suspicions of something "out-of-the-ordinary" being the creation? If people weren't educated enough to understand the world, its history and its functioning would they not turn to a more supernatural approach? The other point I'd like to get across to you is the insignificance of this First Cause business. If you believe what you say, and that the First Cause was in fact the foundation of time and space itself, then why do you not believe in a far more plausible, backed up theory? Why should there be some supervisor being?

Again, I'm not attempting to undermine you here on any level. I am myself suspicious of God being existent, yet this doesn't mean I believe he created the Universe and all its inhabitants. As I said somewhere waaay back, science still does not allow us to draw conclusions for everything, so there are always windows for a theory that does not accord to science, at least not as we know it.

[Joshua822]

To hop back on the argument of The Big Bang theory and God being able to be co-existant.

Why couldn't it be possible that because of the Big Bang an above natural form of life was also created ? I do not have any backup for this statement though, it's just a thought. And i would like to hear more from the people that know the big bang theory and the arguments / explanations behind it. I'm not even going to try doing it myself since i do not know anything about astrophysics yet.

Also, don't confuse evolution being the real opponent for the God theory. Evolution is only a theory about how life has evolved. And this could have possible be thought out and executed by a God. It's the big bang theory that should be compared to Creationism's fundamental : an existing God or not.

We're all forgetting one thing though : both can sound illogical. Everything must have started somehow. And thanks to this ( most likely ) valid reasoning both sound illogical. And the lasting problem is : if we might find out what caused the Big Bang / God, then we can also question how that occured.

Filling gaps of knowledge can be done with God. But then we must know sure that God exists and this is the work of God. We don't know any of these two things. So we may not fill these gaps with God until God is proven.

And for last, science didn't just pick out evolution just because 'evolution' sounds more logical then 'God created everything'. It's because of the research behind Evolution, because of the well thought arguments and because of it being actually well thought out in it's whole. Something that can't be said about Creationism.

[Tobbe]

We're all forgetting one thing though : both can sound illogical. Everything must have started somehow. And thanks to this ( most likely ) valid reasoning both sound illogical.

They do both sound illogical. The difference between them is that the Big Bang Theory is supported by all observable evidence (if it wasn't, it would seize to be a theory).

And for last, science didn't just pick out evolution just because 'evolution' sounds more logical then 'God created everything'. It's because of the research behind Evolution, because of the well thought arguments and because of it being actually well thought out in it's whole.

And the evidence. Let's not forget the evidence.

[Joshua822]

And the evidence. Let's not forget the evidence.

Oh, right. You're right actually. There is a lot of evidence. To name a good example, ever heard of "Lucy" ? It actually gives a quite good vision on what humans looked like when evolving from apes to humans.
Some more information about "Lucy" on the National Geographic website

[Tobbe]

We didn't evolve from apes. We are apes.
I'm sure this sentence will cause our new house Creationist to have a fit! XD

[Joshua822]

That quite confuses me. I know humans have many, many things in common with apes. But, although our DNA is 99 % ( or so ) identical, this strictly would mean we're not entirely apes.

I could be wrong though.

[Tobbe]

You are wrong. The species homo sapiens is a member of the hominidae family (great apes). It can be a bit confusing, but that's the way biological taxonomy works. We are apes, just like we are chordates, mammals and primates. And here's some food for thought: Any descendants of the human species, whatever they might look like, would still be classified as chordates, mammals, primates, apes and humans. I personally think it would be awesome if the human species would branch off into two or more different species, making homo a family rather than a genus (I think, ask a real biologist).

[Holy Crap]

You know, humans really aren't suited to a lot of parts of the earth anyway. The only reason we survive is because we change the environment to suit us. If it's hot, instead of finding shelter, we make it. It's cold, we don't have thick furs to keep us warm, so we make some. So that part of Mister Dark's arguement is really invalid.

[Joshua822]

From a logical point of view, i think we could also say that the earth was suited for the first forms of life too. But life evaluated to suiting itself better to the earth indeed. But i think this point is valid, because if even the first forms of live where suited for earth, then their should logically be life on other planets in our solar system too. The earth provided the necessary circumstances for life : oxygen and water. So that live could be there in the first place.

[Tobbe]

There was no oxygen on Earth when abiogenesis ocurred. The first living organisms appeared somewhere around 3.5-3.8 billion years ago, and the build-up of oxygen in the atmosphere didn't start until almost a billion years later. This build-up apparently happened because of the first occurence of photosynthesizing algae on Earth. So we don't have the oxygen required for complex life here on Earth because god magically placed it here, we have it thanks to much simpler, photosynthesizing life forms. Oxygen is therefore not a neccesary chemical component for life.