A water ocean on Titan?

The article does not claim that life DOES exist on titan, it just says that because there is water, the likely hood of life is higher than zero.

Your logic is full of holes, your numbers are wrong.

Yes humans have never documented witnessing life arising from non-life. This does not mean that within the LONG history of the planet that it has never happened.

Kevinrtrs - Just wondering if you would mind answering a few questions, about your beliefs, i have?

Australian Aboriginals have existed on the continent for over 40 000 years Kev. Do you not classify them as a part of "human history"? Or do they simply not exist because they do not fit in with you and your ilk's fantasy stories? Get off this site and don't come back, your views are not scientific and have no place here. That is what Jesus would do.

There's no contradiction in that. The aboriginals were here 40,000 years ago, floating in the ether. Then God came in and made his planets and stars and clouds and stuff, and the aboriginals were all "WTF???" and fell to the earth and landed in australia all bruised and pissed and stuff 6000 years ago, and have been wandering the outback ever since.

We need to go ahead and assemble a brigade of electronic roughnecks to go out and drill for all these underground oceans on all these moons, and prove the scientists correct that there's water, or prove them wrong and tell them to stfu.

Just so long as they don't consult with BP or Halliburton, we have plenty of oil companies with expertise to offer.

http://www.lpi.us...1413.pdf

Quote:
Whereas the original images (except for a few pairs obtained at similar orbital phase, some of which we have mapped previously) were offset by as much as 30 km, the new versions align much better. The remaining misalignments, typically <1 km, can be removed by a least-squares adjustment of the spacecraft trajectories before mapping, which also ensures that the stereo digital topographic models (DTMs) are made consistent with altimetry and SAR topography profiles.

We know this categorically and with absolute certainty..

What we know categorically and with absolute certainty is that first there was a planet with no life, and then life began. Therefore, life arose from "dead things". Simple as that.

Even if you push the argument that life on Earth came from another planet, well, then that other planet started life from nothing. We know that life could not exist in early universe, then life started to exist. Why do some people have such hard time grasping the logic?

For life to exist in any place some external agent possessing said life has to physically plant it there first. Life does not arise spontaneously from dead things. We know this categorically and with absolute certainty from about 6000 years of human history.

This, coming from someone whose belief in at least one higher being was not dissimilar to the beliefs of those who first came up with and touted spontaneous generation as an explanation for life appearing in certain environments. I'm sure the Christians continued this belief after the Greeks anyway.

Of course this was disproven (by Louis Pasteur iirc?) and you've clearly acknowledged that. But what's to stop the same forces responsible for planting life here from planting life elsewhere, such as Titan? I thought your God could do anything?

This, coming from someone whose belief in at least one higher being was not dissimilar to the beliefs of those who first came up with and touted spontaneous generation as an explanation for life appearing in certain environments. I'm sure the Christians continued this belief after the Greeks anyway.

Yes, the Aristotelian hypothesis of "spontaneous generation" (Wikipedia entry exists) was undisputed in pre-renaissance Christianity. But in those times Christianity was dominated by Catholicism whereas Creationism is a completely different beast.

From a theological prospective, it's not logical in any civilization or at any point in time to proclaim that life arose from nothing. Or proclaim that life began on a planet that came for nothing. For life to began it needs matter, and science says matter cannot be created or destroyed. So by definition of science some external force must have excised at some point to; you might say jump start whatever theory you may have on the origin of the universe or life itself.

This is not necessarily the case. Just because water is found on another planet/moon it does not imply that life might exist there.

No, the fact we have no idea if life is there implies that life may be there. It also might not be there, but the presence of water increases the probability of life by a small but non-zero amount.

For life to exist in any place some external agent possessing said life has to physically plant it there first.

So you're saying you believe we came to be through panspermia?

Life does not arise spontaneously from dead things.

No, it would arise through a combination of natural forces and conditions. There would be nothing spontaneous about it.

We know this categorically and with absolute certainty from about 6000 years of human history.

Actually only through about 200 years. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, however abiogenesis isn't SG, so you should probably learn a bit before you preach.

Yes, the Aristotelian hypothesis of "spontaneous generation" (Wikipedia entry exists) was undisputed in pre-renaissance Christianity. But in those times Christianity was dominated by Catholicism whereas Creationism is a completely different beast.

It's a good answer, to be sure. But not actually much to do with the point I was trying to make :P The part that bothers me is this omnipotent God is supposedly responsible for putting life here, but it's apparently well beyond his ability to put it elsewhere and total blasphemy to assume so even if to his credit. I'm failing to understand that 'logic' from kevinrts the devout.

@Skeptic :

No, it would arise through a combination of natural forces and conditions. There would be nothing spontaneous about it.

Please describe these wonderful natural forces that will have to defy current chemical and physical laws as we understand them. Forces that will produce long strands of same-handed amino chains mounted on extremely volatile sugars. Forces that will in even the simplest form of life produce something that has a complexity that exceeds most of man' most ambitious computer technology. Please go ahead and describe these forces for us. If you happen to have it right please send it to a peer reviewed publication and step up to receive your Nobel prize. The world is waiting with bated breath for anyone to step up to the plate and produce a plausible, thouroughly scientific[testable, repeatable, observable] explanation of how life can get started from pure natural forces alone. Go Ahead and knock yourself out. A million dollars is in waiting.

Even if you push the argument that life on Earth came from another planet, well, then that other planet started life from nothing. We know that life could not exist in early universe, then life started to exist. Why do some people have such hard time grasping the logic?

Perhaps you should ask yourself that question. Why do you find it difficult to understand that it's impossible for life to come from a dead planet unless some external agent with the blueprints and tools to create that life first arrives on the scene. Life is NOT going to suddenly pop up from just the dust of any planet or moon or star in any galaxy in the whole universe. Not unless that place is so special that the laws of physics and chemistry and even more important information theory doesn't apply. Have you looked at the requirements for life lately?
From your incredibly simplistic logic I have to wonder if you understand the comlexities involved.

From your incredibly simplistic logic I have to wonder if you understand the comlexities involved.

Oh, the irony.

Kevin and QC have both been reported for breaking forums guidelines. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

@kevinrts

Please provide evidence of the existance of your magical sky fairy. Then provide evidence that said fairy had anything to do with the writing of your favorite book of fables.

You keep making unsubstantiated statements in these forums based on nothing more than your superstitious beliefs, and you actually act as if that has some kind of credibility. Provide proof for your basic premise, or continue to accept being nothing more than comic relief.

Kevin and QC have both been reported for breaking forums guidelines. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

I wouldn't personally report QC. I may disagree with his basic beliefs, but at least he does engage in dialog. And he does also sometimes make comments that have nothing to do with creationism/evolution. Kevinrts is nothing more than a finite state automaton, with the predictable and repetitive drive-by postings. Frankly I'd rate him right along with the female goods postings.

Kevin and QC have both been reported for breaking forums guidelines. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

So have you (in other threads). I encourage everyone else to do the same as well.

Also, "Creationism" is an absolute and necessary part of Christianity.

No it isn't, and by saying that, QC, you demonstrate that you don't understand christianity. The ONLY belief that is necessary to be a christian is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of god, that he died for our sins, and arose on the third day in fulfillment of the prophecies. THAT'S IT!! Crap about dancing, baptism, speaking in tongues, or creationism is all irrelevant detail.

Here's a logical test for you, to illustrate my point. You've got two people, one of whom believes in creationism but not in Jesus, and the other who believes in Jesus but not in creationism. Who's going to heaven and who's going to hell?

Grow up, QC. Most xians DO NOT believe in literal creationism, and a god that would consign the majority to hell while letting in a minority of bad-tempered curmudgeons like you and kevin isn't worth believing in or worshiping.

No it isn't, and by saying that, QC, you demonstrate that you don't understand christianity. The ONLY belief that is necessary to be a christian is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of god, that he died for our sins, and arose on the third day in fulfillment of the prophecies. THAT'S IT!! Crap about dancing, baptism, speaking in tongues, or creationism is all irrelevant detail.

100% correct! Couldn't have said it better myself and I'm a Christian. The "problem" is that some (or most) Christians don't get this and neither do some (or most) atheists.

Why do you find it difficult to understand that it's impossible for life to come from a dead planet unless some external agent with the blueprints and tools to create that life first arrives on the scene.

@kevinrts

Why do you find it difficult to understand that making an unsubstantiated imperative statement like this doesn't make it so, and doesn't convince anybody of anything? You are not authoritative and you are not recognized as authoritative. Before you can establish any base of credibility from which to make these kind of statements, you have to establish credibility for your base assumptions -- specifically that the bible is something more than a collection of shepherd's fairy tales, and your god is something other than wishful thinking. I keep asking for evidence of same (as do a number of forum regulars) and you keep ignoring the requests.

Please show evidence for the existance of your magical sky fairy. Then we'll pay some attention.

Also, "Creationism" is an absolute and necessary part of Christianity. .. etc

Also, QC, and I'm probably beating a dead horse, but your second paragraph is presumably provided as 'proof' of your statement that creationism is a necessary part of christianity. Unfortunately it *doesn't* provide any support for the premise. You may *interpret* those passages that way, but that's not any more authoritative than the bald statement. You then summarize with another imperative statement as if you`ve just proved a point. Even ignoring that this is a science forum and the bible has no standing whatsoever, even by religious scholarship standards you have utterly failed to prove your point.

And if you`re going to continue to insist that they aren`t christians anyhoo, please make sure to advise god of your decision about the fate of their souls so he can update his books.

100% correct! Couldn't have said it better myself and I'm a Christian. The "problem" is that some (or most) Christians don't get this and neither do some (or most) atheists.

The problem is that most xians don`t wish to examine their belief system on a `scholarly` basis, preferring to stick to simple black and white `talking points`. The problem with *thinking* about your faith is that A) it`s hard work, and B) it gives rise to the possibility that some of your beliefs may need revising. And I`m not talking about core beliefs like the trinity, or divinity of JC. Ppl like kev and qc hew just as diligently to minor stuff simply because the alternative is that they aren`t absolutely right about everything.

And it`s unfortunate because that fundamentalist attitude is what really gives (any) religion a bad name.

Your (insert-diety-here) is alive according to you yes? Did he just SG into existance? Come on...

p.s. we have made experiments to see if long chemical chains make themselves. in a sealed and untampered environment. (some were anyway, others were subjected to heating or electricity ect...) and most did make long protein chains.

kevinrts is a troll.... ignore.

kevinrts is a troll.... ignore.

He is a troll because he propagates his belief in creation instead of evolution? Well.. I think both views must be respected. Personally I hope that there will be no 'tribal wars' here but common sense discussions..

kevinrtrs is a troll because he asks questions and then ignores the answers, makes unfounded comments and ignores the responses, and promulgates non-science on a science web site.
He doesn't want to discuss and learn, he just wants to make what he pretends is a meaningful point.

kevinrtrs is entitled to his opinion, but he should be actualy be willing to learn about science if he is on a science web site (or else just stick to religious web sites).

I'd be surprised if any of the actual scientists on this site go onto bible study web sites and waste the time of people there by pointing out what we see as evidence against what they are teaching - it is their web site, created for their purpose, and we respect that.

kevenrtrs should return that respect by not posting non-science here.

kevinrts is a troll.... ignore.

He is a troll because he propagates his belief in creation instead of evolution? Well.. I think both views must be respected. Personally I hope that there will be no 'tribal wars' here but common sense discussions..

No view is worthy of respect simply for existing. A view is worthy of respect if and only if it is accurate. His views are not accurate and trample soundly into the realm of willful ignorance.

Beyond that, very few non-religious people agree without evidence yet many religious people will consent agreement on faith. Tribalism requires superficial belief without evidence. You won't get that flavor of mob mentality without incredulity.

Grow up, QC. Most xians DO NOT believe in literal creationism, and a god that would consign the majority to hell while letting in a minority of bad-tempered curmudgeons like you and kevin isn't worth believing in or worshiping.

Where do you get this belief?

Here is what Jesus said on those subjects.

In Matthew 25, JESUS used the modifier "everlasting" twice in regards to hell: "Everlasting fire" and "everlasting punishment".

And it was JESUS who said in Matthew 7, along with Luke 13, that there are FEW who go in through the narrow gate to life, and again, many would seek to enter in and, for whatever reason of disbelief or disobedience, not do so(lk. 13).

So I would ask you, if you are a christian, then what are you basing your beliefs on, since you reject the records of the only people who actually claim to have seen and heard Jesus' teachings first hand?

If God is not the creator of the universe, then the book of John must be discarded, due to the opening

Seriously, if you don't believe in creation, then who are what or why do you even believe in God at all? Who is God, if not the creator and the first cause?

By definition, the term "God," or more specifically "Yahweh" is the creator and the first cause.

This is not only the Biblical teaching, but it is also the philosophical conclusion, even starting from the standpoint of extra-biblical naturalism, ontology, and metaphysics.

God is, by definition, the first cause.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...all things were made by him and without Him was not anything made which was made."

Affirming both positively and negatively that God exists, all things were made by Him, and there are no other creators.

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." - Hebrews 11,3.

This "faith" is not an illogical blind acceptance...continued

Hebrews 11,3...

This is not a "blind acceptance" of some axiomatic statement, even though it is an axiom, it can be proven philosophically, even if one refuses to see the physical evidences nature presents directly.

In the book of Revelation, Jesus, who is the speaker, says identifies himself thrice as "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending". With the first occurrence of this terminology we see "which is and was and is to come."

And then along with the third occurrence of this terminology, he adds the terms "First and Last". This parallels statements that Yahweh made to the prophet in Isaiah chapers 41, 44, and 48, along with "I am the first and the last," and, "beside me there is no God."

Thus, in Revelation, Jesus is identifying himself through this terminology as that same God, the only true God, who spoke to the old testament prophet.

Read Job 40 and 41.

If you don't believe in Creation you simply do not believe in God or Jesus.

2 Corinthians 11, 3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him

So I would ask you, "Which 'Jesus' do you believe in?"

The ONLY Jesus the Apostles preached is and was the incarnate creator God who made everything that exists (John 3:16-19, 1 Tim. 3:16).

So anyway, who or what do you believe God is, if not the creator, the first cause?

You claim to believe in God, and yet don't believe in creation. By definition you have conflicting beliefs.

Who or what do you believe Jesus is, if not the "Only begotten Son of God"?

If you believe Jesus was a false prophet, or if you think he was a true prophet, but not the Christ, then you're not a Christian.

So almost every book in the Bible specifically states that God is the creator, that he made the universe, the sun, the earth, the "worlds", or life itself, etc, OR if it does not directly state such, most of the remaining books quote, paraphrase, or make other reference to texts which identify God as the creator of the universe.

Who is Jesus if not the Son of God, the Christ, the redeemer?

"...The Son of Man hath power on Earth to forgive sins..." - Matt. 9,6.

"Son of Man" is Jesus term for himself, because it identifies himself as a man in a mortal body, yet he is also the incarnate God.

In John 8,58, Jesus makes a direct claim to deity, saying, "...before Abraham was, I am...," which ties in with the story of Moses at the burning bush where God calls himself "I AM".

Also see the tenth chapter of John's gospel.

Seriously, anyone on this thread who cares, whether "believer" or unbeliever...read John's gospel at least one time, especially chapters 1 through 10.

What ever became of the original topic of this thread?

Whether or not you claim to believe, please, at least read and preferably study John's Gospel and like the first 7 chapters of Matthews at least one time in your life.

I am not insulting anyone on this thread, but the people here who THINK they have some knowledge of the subject do not even have a typical sunday school student's knowledge or understanding of basic christian doctrine or theology.

The alleged Christians in this thread don't believe in creation and don't believe in hell, or at least not an eternal hell?

What is the point of salvation if you, an alleged christian, believe there is no hell?

What is Jesus saving anyone from if you believe there is no eternal judgment?

To whom is Jesus reconciling the world, if there is no creation and no hell?

Your faith is vain, because you do not even believe in the basic theology or ontology of who and what God, Jesus, or creation really are.

Do you see how silly it is claiming to believe in God, but not creation?

What ever became of the original topic of this thread?

Not sure about any other rabbit trails, but at some point, Frajo made a false statement about the psuedo-scientific hypothesis of Spontaneous Generation, to which I responded.

My other comments here have been addressing the gross and ridiculous philosophical, spiritual, and factual errors in the theology and doctrine of both the alleged believers and unbelievers on this thread.

It is relevant because cosmology necessarily ends up discussing creation at some point.

but at some point, Frajo made a false statement about the psuedo-scientific hypothesis of Spontaneous Generation

Which of my statements do you mean?

Some dude named Ratzinger said this in 1995:

"The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity."

He is supposed to know something about Catholic theology. He has no problem fitting Darwin, evolution and persumably all the water on Titan into his doctrine without denying them all.

http://en.wikiped...volution

So, for those who take the bible at face value, and apply a literal translation (QC and Kevin, at least).

How do you reconcile the parts of the bible that strictly go against what we consider proper morality.

The parts that say that women are unclean and should not be touched (and you should not touch things they touch) during their menstrual cycle. How about the parts that advocate slavery?

Here are some quotes.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. -- Exodus 21:20-21

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. -- Ephesians 6:5

So, According to QC and Kevin, Slavery is not only Okay, there are specific rules governing how much you can beat your slave, who you can enslave, how slaves should act... etc..

Seriously, if you don't believe in creation, then who are what or why do you even believe in God at all? Who is God, if not the creator and the first cause?

QC, I'm not going to continue this debate because A) I'm not really that interested in it, and B) all your arguments are missing the point. Here's the point: Most christians DO NOT believe in literal creationism, but DO believe in JC as the son of god, etc, yadda yadda. They exist. You can't make them go away by holding your breath. You can claim they're wrong, but they'll claim you're wrong. You can quote the bible, then they'll quote the bible. You can claim direct communication with god, then they'll claim the same. The point is that your stance on this is based only on stubborn repetition of your stance on this.

And I frankly don't care because it's all a bunch of fairy tales anyway.

The best most of us can say is the same as socrates. Basically we don't know for certain. I will say intelligent design in some shape seems more plausible than random growth of inorganic to organic. I would say it takes more faith to believe we came from in organics than something designed us.

On topic I hope this leads to future robes to titan.

OK OK

so there may or maynot be even water -- let alone life -- we have known about this for years --- MY QUESTION

How do we even check

What type of lander can even get close enough to check??? We are talking about getting through maybe miles of ice to check right -- so what are your ideas on this

Do we send a Nuclear powered base station to amplify signals from a nuclear powered submarine that lands and then melts its way down into this ocean??? Both radiation shielded of course to prevent killing any life they may meet. What is it made out of -- in my example a graphene outer shell i think would be the most effeciant use of energy as it has the highest thermal conductiviy and thus would heat up really quickly and dissipate that heat into the surrounding ice to melt its way down. Does that sound reasonable??

And QC

someone can be spiritual and not accept a westernized concept of God. Rememeber polythesism: well it is still the third most practised form of religion on the planet with about 900 million people practising hinduism - this is not couting the other poly's (no pun intended for those who know the reference)

Spirituality is deeply personal at the very least: only this new form of Chrisitanity that emerged post Revolutionary War has made an arguement of openly critising personal spirituality as if this too should conform to a 'norm' This practise has then spread to currupt free thought and expression of ideas and creative input: the creation of a dogma has created other dogmas in ares they SHOULD NOT BE: like science. Science is not an exact science and when it is we will conceptually KNOW everything about the universe that there is to KNOW: which will leave only those things which are unobservable to place in not faith but as unobservable:This still won't disprove GOD.

Observations and questions ....

There are two conclusions in this thread brought about by two similamethodsds of investigation. The article itself proposes there is an 'underground' (as in below surface)ocean on Titan. The surface floats upon this liquid body.

The evidence they use is the observations that some surface points have moved "up to 19 miles". That we just saw Japan move up to 19 meters only means that we are pikers.

They are using secondary evidence of the existence of this fluid body. No pictures of this ocean have been taken, no core samples of the liquid, just a supposition of it being there.

There is a similar argument about God, god and gods .... He/She or it did not make a Youtube of creation - but the argument is that here we be, there must be sometexplaino explan that/us. This is another argument from secondary evidence.

Sorry gyus .... both leave me cold.

Both positions leave me cold. The article does not explain where they came up with the water/ammonia theory - no chemical analysis, no further evidence ...

As for the God thingie ... that is a purely ontological argument - this is so, therefor this must be so. (see St Anselm). If the explanation of our being is to rest on this - count me out. Indeed, where we came from is interesting to know, but does not really effect me - the here and now is keeping me too busy.

Yes, origins are important to biology, but not to my philosophy.

My last question is where did all these oceans of liquid methane come from? I have worked in the oil sands and you can see fossilized flora from fecund jungles of old, and the occasionaal dinosaur. But 'I ha's me doubts' that Titan was once covered by plants just waiting to decompose to coal, to oil, to diamonds.

Where did all these oceans of hydrocarbon come from. (and don't tell me God put it there on a slow day.)

just noticed the major technological advance of the 20th century let me down. My spell checker mixed up some words. Forgive me, I know not what it did.

ennui27 - While silicon, oxygen and iron dominate the inner solar system, hydrogen dominates from Jupiter on out.

Due to the abundance of oxygen on earth, carbon has ended up as carbonates and hydrogen as water, unless life has split out the carbon and hydrogen to make carbohydrates or oils (and in doing so freed up more oxygen that oxidizes any methane in the atmosphere in a few years). Thus methane here is typically associated with life (past or present).

In contrast out at Titan there is plenty of extra hydrogen, which consumes any oxygen not bound as silicates. At Titan's temperature this forms inactive ice, keeping the oxygen locked up. With plenty of hydrogen and no free oxygen, carbon is free to form methane and ethane without needing life.

If that is so, then where from came the oxygen that is in this below surface ocean? If the surface is afloat and moving about on the water, it must be fluid and not in the form of ice.

They say this ocean is quite extensive - so at one time there must have been a considerable amount of free oxygen. They also mention the ice you refer to - but if there is ice, there must have been water at one time.

I do not doubt your explanation and am grateful for it ... but some of these things should have dealt with in the article.

ennui27 - it is not that Titan is short on oxygen, it is that it is rich enough hydrogen to keep the oxygen locked up. Some of the oxygen is locked up in silicates (most rocks are silicates), and most of the rest is locked up as water (liquid or ice, depending on the temperature).

Being in a hydrogen-rich zone of the solar system, Titan should have proportionately more water (including ice) than earth does, and proportionately less iron and less rock.

Being in a hydrogen-rich zone of the solar system, Titan should have proportionately more water (including ice) than earth does, and proportionately less iron and less rock.

even if that is a much more satisfactory explaination than: "'Cause God wants it that way..." it still brings up a myriad other questions. But they are, no doubt, for other times and other threads.

The best most of us can say is the same as socrates. Basically we don't know for certain. I will say intelligent design in some shape seems more plausible than random growth of inorganic to organic. I would say it takes more faith to believe we came from in organics than something designed us.

On topic I hope this leads to future robes to titan.

Except all life is completely comprised of the same atoms that make up inanimate objects.

ID isn't even a hypothesis. If you think otherwise, tell me exactly what you think constitutes 'design'. Chances are you can cite a design for one object, or perhaps a multitude of exactly similar objects, but you cannot cite a 'design' that would result in the diversity found amongst a single species, let alone all life.

Evolutionist fantasy: water + carbohydrates + long ages = life
In reality: The Word of God + 6 days = life

Evolutionist fantasy: water + carbohydrates + long ages = life
In reality: The Word of God + 6 days = life

Bit off-topic there, as well as being incorrect. The theory of evolution deals with mutation and selection in living creatures; it does not address the origin of life at all. That particular topic is known as abiogenesis.

I'm all for free speech and all that but why the hell are we getting endless comments and quotes from the bible when this is supposed to be a science forum. If someone wants to put their theological theories forward please do it on the many religious forums out there.

DocBrown,

Science was also created by God. without God there is no knowledge, because all science would be just brain chemistry.

For knowledge to really exist, you need some external standard of truth beyond brain mass. In addition the laws of logic are required to enable reasoning. These laws are non-material. The very existence of laws of logic and the reality of knowledge refutes materialistic atheism.

I'm all for free speech and all that but why the hell are we getting endless comments and quotes from the bible when this is supposed to be a science forum. If someone wants to put their theological theories forward please do it on the many religious forums out there.

Well said, Dr,B - i have learned something about science here and something about the composition of planets .... (very little about theology).

DocBrown,

Science was also created by God. without God there is no knowledge, because all science would be just brain chemistry.

For knowledge to really exist, you need some external standard of truth beyond brain mass. In addition the laws of logic are required to enable reasoning. These laws are non-material. The very existence of laws of logic and the reality of knowledge refutes materialistic atheism.

What's this even supposed to mean? The only positive reaction you are ever going to get from this 'argument' is knowing head-nods from those that already agree with you. So if something doesn't have a supernatural explanation it isn't real? I know where you start and where you end, but how you get there is a total mystery to me.