Orexis

I can easily look for the three laws of Thermodynamics. Where can I look for the laws of Biology? You see, Life only coming from Life is not possible until the theory of Life coming out of Non-Life is obsolete. You cannot use this "law" to refute a theory, because if an alternate theory is there, then it's still not a law. Allright, I'll give you two Christian sources that say Miller did create aminoacids: 1) http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html 2) The Book The Case For Faith by Lee Strobel, Objection #3, pages 95 and 96 Guess what both of them say about Miller; the same thing I say about him: That the atmosphere he created had no basis on Old Earth's atmosphere, but none of these sources disagree in that Miller's experiment did create aminoacids.

I have to disagree with that. First of all, there's no such thing as First Law of Biology. Second, Miller didn't fail. The following in quotations I'm reading from a source as basic as the Wikipedia, where it clearly showed results: "At the end of the week when they gathered the results, they found seven “spots” in the glass unit. The men easily identified three of the seven spots as glycine, the same as found in the previous trial, alpha-alanine, and beta alanine. Two of the others were identified as a-amino-n-butyric acid and a crystalline amino acid known as aspartic acid." Some critics thought the aminoacids could have been created by already existing bacteria from any time the glass had been in contact with the atmosphere, so Miller made a second experiment: "He did this be redoing the experiment. This time he heated the artificial atmosphere inside his specially designed glass unit long enough so that no bacteria could have possibly survived. It would have only taken about fifteen minutes for the heat to kill all of the bacteria that might have been in the unit but to be sure, Miller decided to leave it heated for eighteen hours. After Miller repeated the experiment, heating the unit in order to kill any bacteria that might have been present in the artificial atmosphere, he and several other scientists who had also repeated the same experiment, all got similar results." There is one problem by which Miller's results prove nothing in the creation of Earth: The components he used in creating this "replica" of the old Earth's atmosphere were arbitrary. There was nothing in his times to prove that the Earth's atmosphere was the same as the atmosphere in his experiments, and by our contemporary times we know that Earth's atmosphere wasn't like that of his experiment. This makes Miller's explanation of the origin of life on Earth obsolete, but he has proven that, given the right circumstances, life comes from non-life without any outside help.

But see, we could say the same thing about Jesus. Although I personally wouldn't. I don't see a problem with Jesus having enough power to resurrect; I just don't think it was an isolated incident.

Haha, I always tell my friends that exact thing when they come up with the four corners of the world argument. (I can both defend and question Christianity) In respect of the Big Bang, I saw a thread on that around here. Maybe I should post a little over there too; explaining the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory.

Hey, how come my post was doubled?

I really understand that, Orexis, but think about this: 300 years ago, people thought the idea of tiny microscopic organisms was absurd. Why? Because they couldn't be seen at the time. 400 years ago, people thought the idea of a round world was absurd. Why? Because it couldn't be seen at the time. There are dangers in assuming that because we can't experience something with our senses, it isn't real, as the first person to look through a microscope and our ol' buddy Galileo discovered. Maybe you just can't "see" that "supernatural being" yet. Oh, but remember why people believed the world was flat: The Bible spoke about Jesus seeing the four (five?) corners of the world; which could only happen if the Earth was flat. The statement of finding something absurd becasue we haven't found out enough about it yet is a double edge sword, as it can be applied both ways. Example: You might believe the Big Bang is absurd, but considering its young age since the theory was coined, you have to respect the logic behind it. After all, religion has had a headstart of millennia before science.

I really understand that, Orexis, but think about this: 300 years ago, people thought the idea of tiny microscopic organisms was absurd. Why? Because they couldn't be seen at the time. 400 years ago, people thought the idea of a round world was absurd. Why? Because it couldn't be seen at the time. There are dangers in assuming that because we can't experience something with our senses, it isn't real, as the first person to look through a microscope and our ol' buddy Galileo discovered. Maybe you just can't "see" that "supernatural being" yet. Oh, but remember why people believed the world was flat: The Bible spoke about Jesus seeing the four (five?) corners of the world; which could only happen if the Earth was flat. The statement of finding something absurd becasue we haven't found out enough about it yet is a double edge sword, as it can be applied both ways. Example: You might believe the Big Bang is absurd, but considering its young age since the theory was coined, you have to respect the logic behind it. After all, religion has had a headstart of millennia before science.

I'm sorry if I seem like the devil's advocate (no pun intended) if I disagree with many things, but I can think of two other deities that have died and risen again: Hierakles or Hercules: He died after wearing a poisoned robe, but the gods brought him back from Hades and made him a god. Odin: from Norse mythology. He went on a quest for knowledge throughout the Nordic nine worlds, and stopped at the Well of Knowledge (almost sounds like Dungeons and Dragons, huh?). The keeper of the well told Odin that he could sip from the well and acquire all the knowledge of the world, but he would have to pay the ultimate price. Odin acceptec this, and the keeper killed him. Of course, the keeper didn't know that Odin was a god. Days later, Odin brought himself back to life and back to his hall in Asgard.

I would wonder what happened. I can think of other reasons than the rapture. But if it's obvious it was the Rapture, I would say "Well I'll be damned, I was wrong after all." I'm sorry, but this is just not true. I cannot read this in any other way but thinking of a statement condemning atheists for not believing what you believe. I am a perfect example of your comment being wrong. The gods know that I would wish they were real; but I find it too absurd that a supernatural being could exist.