Post your theological argument here.

[bugfartboy]

Alright. Where did water come from? Hmm? Left over atoms just floating around in space that suddenly collided and polar covalently bonded to form the water we all know and love until it hit a gravitational field and landed on earth? And if the universe is, as you have said, infinite, is water really needed to sustain life if any alien species that you say could be put there "evolved" differently?

[Duskling]

Read this, then this. I simply cannot explain it, given the current status of my brain.

[cyso]

If we evolved to fit our environment, why can't particles on Jupiter evolve to fit theirs? Forget the entire "the galaxy is so huge, there must be life out there" thing. If life can evolve from a bunch of amino acids, why hasn't it evolved from anything else? Don't tell me because the conditions aren't right. What makes the conditions right? What difference would conditions make if things could just evolve and adapt to them. Why isn't there life everywhere?
Another thing. Even if amino acids arranged themselves correctly, what would cause them to come to life?

[ArtDrake]

Because the atmosphere on Jupiter is made up of molecules that theoretically cannot, or at least have not been seen to bond, and thus cannot support life. In the lower Jupiter atmosphere, pressures are so high that life could not exist, as the cells could not hold together, even if the right particles were there.

And why must you keep picking at the origins when that's the one thing we're not almost 100% sure about? Yours aren't much better:

"Some dude said there's light, and there's light. Some dude said there's firmament, whatever that is, and there was. The same guy continues to say that there should be a bunch of stuff". Really.

And water formed in those steps you described, but the other way around; the hydrogen and oxygen were floating around, as you say, and were attracted into the protoplanetary disk of Earth, and once the Earth had radiated most of its heat off to space, the large number of hydrogen molecules and oxygen molecules were attracted to the same body, and pushed to the srface by being lighter. Then, they attracted each other, and may have formed water, or H₂O₂, or O₂ (not much O₂, though).

Darwin was not a "crazy idiot", but a very intelligent, analytical individual that drew conclusions from observations in nature from animals, plants, and rock formations

And with your example of the TV, try something more along the lines of "I put a bunch of strongly magnetic parts in a box, and I did that for about 100 million boxes. Then, I shook them all for about 1.4 billion years, and one or two of them managed to come together and form a functional TV at some ppoint." This is a better portrayal of the theory of evolution's idea of the origins of life on Earth.

I just want to say that despite my best efforts, this is no longer a theological debate, but a poking at science, trying to find holes.

OF COURSE THERE ARE BLOODY HOLES!! But at least there are less holes than there would be in your insane religion if it weren't so catch-all.

"God did it". "He did it". "Who can try to explain this?" "It was God's will". "It was all part of his stinkin' PLAN".

[Steelfist]

An understandable point of view; the tone of the argument has been lowered.

In essence. The arguers for religion are suggesting that science has ridiculous and far fetched theories. Oh, sweet irony . . .

[cyso]

In essence. The arguers for religion are suggesting that science has ridiculous and far fetched theories. Oh, sweet irony . . .

Scientist are the people claiming to have evidence. They claim to support their stuff based on fact.
Their are holes in evolution, but they are ignored and placed in textbooks like it is the indisputable truth. Scientist defend it like it is the indisputable truth. I wouldn't mind evolution as much if scientist or textbooks would admit that there are some things they don't know instead of claiming they have insurmountable evidence.
It also bugs me to no end that scientist claim to be unbiased, yet a large amount of their evidence is misrepresented or downright false.

[bugfartboy]

In essence. The arguers for religion are suggesting that science has ridiculous and far fetched theories. Oh, sweet irony . . .

Scientist are the people claiming to have evidence. They claim to support their stuff based on fact.
Their are holes in evolution, but they are ignored and placed in textbooks like it is the indisputable truth. Scientist defend it like it is the indisputable truth. I wouldn't mind evolution as much if scientist or textbooks would admit that there are some things they don't know instead of claiming they have insurmountable evidence.
It also bugs me to no end that scientist claim to be unbiased, yet a large amount of their evidence is misrepresented or downright false.

I agree.

[ArtDrake]

Sure, there are holes. But there are white holes in the universe, and we can accept that things just happened the same way as black holes, but time-reversed. But how did they arrive? How did they come together? It would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics! The entropy goes the wrong way! Does this mean we don't teach the theory of gravity like it's absolute fact?

NO!

[Steelfist]

I cannot help but agree that many scientists are too biased, and yes, many discard theories and evidence because they don't like the connotations.

However, saying, because of this, that ALL scientists misrepresent and ignore evidence is as unreasonable as suggesting that all catholic priests are paedophiles.

In addition, yes, there are holes in many theories. However, religion itself could be compared to, say, one large hole where a theory should be. Nonetheless, it gives people in dire straits something to hold on to, so it's not all bad. Just not reasonable.

[MikeW781]

Many religions were a creation of man to explain the unseen.
Christianity is different in the sense that it is based around a REAL person. Whether he is a deity or not varies among people.

I need to interject a slightly off topic question and ask you if you truly believe every other religion is straight-out wrong, and Christianity is the only one of the many religions in the world that is factually correct in their beliefs.

[Deagonx]

Straight out wrong? No, they are correct in the fact there is a deity. Just they have a false one.

[Zackirus]

As an agnostic, I have to interject, what makes your "god" more real than any other god(s) humans have ever believed in?

[Deagonx]

The fact that he exists. :)

[Zackirus]

The fact that he exists. :)

That's not an answer. You just avoided the question.

[Deagonx]

No, I didn't. What makes him more real than the other deities in other religions? It's simple. The christian god isn't false.