Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

After reading most of the posts here, I think you guys and gals can handle it on your own. Don't look at me, I'm just a dumb atheist. Not that atheists are dumb, just me.

Anywho, I did read Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, and while I myself found some suspect logic several times, and I do think he's a bit hard on religion, I thought it was a good read.

But I'm dumb so why are you reading this?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It had to happen in numerous distinct stages. Not just once. So the probability of naturalistic explanations is instead an improbability.<!-/Quote-!>

Why? Care to elaborate? What are these stages? What do they entail?

If anything, breaking it down into several smaller, more simple stages argues in favour of life naturally occuring through chemical process, not against it.

If you'd like examples of rather complex spontaneous reactions in nature there are plenty to see - the NCO reaction in stars, for example. Is this "complexity" also "proof" of a deity?

I'm not really for or against the argument regarding a god. I'd just like something a little bit more substantial than the argument from design as proof. That has always felt like a cop out.

All I keep seeing as an argument for a creator is the Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy: "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true."

Okay, okay. How does one "quote" from a post, please? I've run out of buttons to push.

Pope: Again. No one said random chance. Anyway, the fact that you (and serpent) think life arose first from amino acids betrays your ignorance of current leading proposals for a theory of abiogenesis. Currently, it is thought that the first replicating molecule (replication being the necessary and sufficient quality of life) was RNA-based, not protein based. Only at the protocell-cell stage would life require proteins. You are presenting a strawman arguement as well as demonstrating a misunderstanding of statistics.

Even though the question of proteins forming at random is irrelevant to abiogenesis, I present an analogy to demonstrate the flaw in your statistics only. Say, I am playing cards. I get dealt a hand of 10 cards. The probability of my being dealt that hand is 1 in 13^10 (number of possiblities to the power of the number of operations). You are saying that when I look at the hand and calculate the staggering odds against my being dealt exactly that hand I must conclude that I could not have got it by chance. Does that make sense? The probability of my being dealt ANY hand of cards is 1 in 1. You claim, groundlessly, that only one hand is important. It can be directly compared to the bean analogy you make.

The basic and consisten flaw made is to look at the end product and marvel at how unlikely it is for the end product to exist EXACTLY IN THE FORM IT IS. There is no reason to think that this form is the only possible form (you have a statistical sample of one) or (to use a Dawkins phrase) we climbed Mount Improbable in small, probable steps.

Serpent: You make an analogy to the car, still being able to operate it without understanding. Well, your claim about mutations is akin to a claim that cars run because of tiny nuclear explosions under the bonnet. It is possible, but it is not only inaccurate, but demonstrably wrong. I would be willing to teach you about mutation, but it will be a bit dry for most people here (I certainly find it interesting). Email, perhaps?

I kindly ask you not to use quotes from scientists in your arguements. Not only is this an argument from authority, you have generally quote mined, which is to take a quote which suits your arguement wholely out of a context which is entirely opposed to your arguement. If I say: 'The laws of thermodynamics are clearly false. Is a clearly false statement as they are demonstrably true'. You can take a quote from me which is completely out of context. This is what you do when you use the upsurd quote from Darwin.

Why do you think evolution is impossible to test? Natural selection is demonstrable (genetic algorithms, population change over time in response to changing environment, antibiotic resistance). Speciation has been observed (lizard species, bacteria, bird species). Evolution is occuring right now, how can you claim it cannot be tested? Go to talkorigins.org. Do you think that your assertion on the nature of mutations constitutes a refutation? If so, I would be happy to teach you more about the nature of mutation which is a sufficient counter refutation.

You do not seem to understand the structure of a debate: A claim is made. Often supporting reason based upon evidence is provided. Either the reason or the evidence can be refuted, based on further reason based on evidence. A counter refutation may occur and so on. So far, you have made a claim (anthropic principle = true), you provided evidence and reasoned based off that. I (and others) have shown both the evidence is inaccurate and/or inappropriate and the reasoning is faulty. You can now choose to make a counter refutation or stop making the teleological argument.

I agree with Miles that the only appropriate use of the word god is as a synonym for fundamental universal truth. But this definition of god is certainly not theistic (it is not concious) and ultimately rather useless (it has no power).

I also want to know how to quote from a post, also embed links and write in italic and bold.

Thanks, Maxwell. Well put. Now... where's that "quote" button?

Oh, and as I've read much on Buddhism, I'm fairly certain Gotama was at least an agnostic given his lecture to Sarriputra. Those who don't know it can google it.

But here's a taste of it for those in need of extra fingers.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/bt-2.htm

The lecture I spoke of is not there but essentially Gotama told Sarriputra that he did not promise to speak about whether there is life after death, only about how to (psychologically) end suffering. In my opinion Buddha was a great psychoanalyst.

Despite many would not label Buddhism as a religion, but rather as a philosophy, mostly due to lack of (personal) God, it is hard to argue its teachings or ethics are not based on (religious) dogmas, just like any other religion.

To me anyone who claims to be in possession of ultimate truths, especially with regard to ethics and especially if such truths are based on dogmas, becomes a suspect of distrust.

Other elements of religion observeable in connection with Buddhism are "cultism" and "worshiping", which yet again makes Buddhism a suspect of distrust to me.

Lastly, from the little I know of Buddhism, Buddha seems like a "smartass" teaching truths on one hand, but when it comes to explaining them turning into vague phraseology of almost agnostic nature.

Well, read the link. There are many pages. What Gotama said, he said. What was written was written about 80 years after he died, so...

And if you know little about something, it is okay to speak or write of it and lack of knowledge thereof, but hardly worth discourse due to ignorance of at least what was written.

As I said, I have read and studied much of Buddhism. My opinion is that it is psychoanalysis circa 600 B.C.E.

What did anyone know much of in 600 B.C.E.? Not much. What do we know now? Not much.

Buddhism split cleverly from Hinduism. I doubt Gotama believed in a caste system, this much is certain from the writing "in my opinion" (which I have at least taken the time to think on). Why wasn't Gotama stoned to death? Indians love philosophy (okay, a great presumption... but read, study, you may agree). What do you think true Hinduism was? Certainly not about gods if one reads well (in my opinion).

Read, study, and then you may write/speak.

But you may write and speak as you wish. I have no quarrel with that. Neither would Christ, Buddha or Gandhi.

Gotama, I highly doubt, held that he had an ultimate truth. But if you read the text, there is much truth in that psychological study. Read before you argue or proclaim. Gotama neither argued nor proclaimed (or so it was written--and remeber that it was written during a time when people were in need of worshiping).

A good Nobel prize winning author (1946--The Glass Bead Game) I will recommend. Herman Hesse. The book? Siddhartha. Start there.

"Other elements of religion observeable in connection with Buddhism are "cultism" and "worshiping", which yet again makes Buddhism a suspect of distrust to me."

What are you? Stupid? People will worship trees. Don't worry about what people worship. Be mindful of what "you" worship; perhaps your vast knowledge of tidbits?

But that's okay. Before you open your mouth make sure your bowels are fully evacuated, lest the "shite" come from from your mouth and not the other end.

"Lastly, from the little I know of Buddhism..." indeed, since you know little, why write? To praise yourself?

I dislike this quarreling that I do. But by golly, you admit you know little, then make a grand pronouncement. Read, good person. Read much. Read from every religion and read what science teaches. Then you may say the earth is flat. You would be wrong, but at least you would be well read. No disrespect intended. Kindly, study what you criticize, otherwise it is wasted breath/keyboard tapping.

And from my other posts I do state that I am an atheist. Therefore, of course, my slant on Buddhism would be bent in that direction. But that's why I like the writings so much. They are, well, atheistic, in my opinion. Great psychology I think, but don't be distracted by the "shite" that sprouts bountifully from my mouth/keyboard.

Read well, then we can both "shite" cleverly from the mouth. I mean you no disrespect. I have great love for you (at the moment I really feel that). It is love, as Dylan Thomas puts it (here I improvize a "tad"), "...the rough love that breaks all rocks."

Okay, well, I have "shite" well from my mouth. And "shite" it is. I insulted you with little more than "learned shite." And I am embarrassed that I insulted you, and even more with little else than "learned shite." Well, you know, some "shite" smells better than others.

I wish you well. Read!

Yes, I am stupid and you bore me.

You are not stupid. And if I bore you, read good books. Read bad books too.

I am sure, Zdenek, that if Sesshu bores you then I bore you to death. I do not need comments such as the three directly above, they do not advance the discussion.

I regard buddists as atheists, but am highly skeptical of reincarnation or karma. Since these are supernatural things, I cannot see any reason why buddism is more likely that invisible pink unicorns who transfer souls between creatures based on a score system of goodness.

I recommend wikipedia. Not so long or dry and has neat pictures, and it is so easy to go accidentally find yourself on 'wet t shirt competions'.

Maxwell, I thank you for your comment and I apologize for the drivel from my mouth/keyboard in my previous post. I do not belive in reincarnation myself, and in my opinion I don't think Gotama did either. I view Buddhism as a psychological quest by Gotama. I personally do not consider it a religion, though most Buddhists do.

There are many offshoots of Buddhism and some, if not most, belive in reincarnation. I personally do not. I think that is why Gotama avoided such questions. I think he would not have lived as long a life as he did if he said otherwise, given the time, perhaps even this time.

As for the topic of discussion I will be most happy to give you my view if you desire so, although I think I have summed it up pretty much in my previous post.

I was rather venomous in some of my reply to Zdenek and I apoligize for that to both of you, and to the community as well.

I was raised as a Catholic and went to a Catholic school in New York City. I must say that, other than a bad teacher in second grade (she was just old and senile), the nuns and priests and the lay teachers were rather good (as I view them now).

I had the occasional ruler smacked against my tiny little hand but other than that I found no great fault in them. And oh, yes, I was an altar boy. At the age of 6 I wanted to become a priest. I mean really. If one belives in God who would not?

Over the years, well, I developed my own thinking and at the age of 36 concluded the biblical God was an impossibility.

Since the age of about 19 I was "into" Zen Buddhism but roughly at 38 or 39 I realized their beliefs were incompatible with my sensibilities.

I still like Zen (for the psychology) and franky I have no quarrel with the version of Christ that Paul presents (I think the "real" Christ and "real" Gotama would have no serious disagreements on their "way to live" philosophy/psychology).

I am very familiar and comfortable with the scientific method and applaud the other posters who verbalized their thoughts much better than I could have. Isn't quantum physics a great smack in the head? Isn't Feynman and others before him remarkable for saying, "If you think you understand quantum physics you obviously don't?"

Although I like Dawkins' recent book... well... I agree with him on most points but he is a few hundred years ahead of his time so I'll leave it at that.

Okay, time for me to stop the drivel. My best to you all.

Sesshu: Accounts of personal experiences are welcome. I find them interesting and enlightening. I myself have been an atheist since the day I was born. At one time or another i might have called myself a deist or a pantheist. Now, however, I find it much easier to call myself an atheist since it is the colloquialisn which most closely represents my views. Although more accurately I would call myself an agnostic atheist, but people dont tend to understand what that means.

As to Buddism, I was under the impression that reincarnation, karma and enlightenment were central to buddiest thinking. Can you call your self a buddist if you dont beleive in these things and instead follow only the teachings. Would it be accurate the characterise you as a philisophical buddist?

I think Dawkins is quite accurate when he describes religious upbringing as a form of child abuse. I know of no other ideology which is so readily assumed to pass from parent to children that we call the children of Jewish parents Jewish children etc. We do not call the children of republican parents republican children. I think that ignorance harms society and religions often survive and thrive in a culture of ignorance. I do not, howver, think we should ban religion tomorrow. Instead we should teach more religion, particularly historical and comparitive religon from a neutral standpoint.

Oh, please come on. Tell me how to "quote" because I can't find the freaking button.

"I myself have been an atheist since the day I was born."

Let's get a bit realistic here. But then you may be Salinger's child so I don't know

"Although more accurately I would call myself an agnostic atheist..."

Given the uncertainty/possibility of this universe being in, say, another, bigger universe (and so on) I would say that I agree with you on that point. The biblical God, no, not for me, but a creator? Well, any technology that superceeds another by a lot looks like magic, as I'm sure you and many others are aware of. A real God in an infinite universe(s)? Okay, I concede the point. I do so because, although I love Mark Twain's (Sam Clemens') saying, (from what I recall), "I was dead billions of years before I was born and I assure you it did not inconvenience me in the least bit," I certainly have no objection to "carrying on" after I pass away. So, yeah, I don't object to that. I might once I get there, but I guess one has to take the final bow to conclusively find out. I think I'm what you would call a "hopeful" atheist. But I know it's wishful thinking.

As for Buddhism, yes, I think reincarnation is a hot subject for them but then I think they misunderstand Gotama's "lectures." One person's psychology is another's religion.

As for what you say about Dawkins, well, that's why I say he's a few hundred years ahead of his time, as are many of us. No "really moral way" to detach children from their parents and tell them they've been brainwashed. We would be shot dead on sight.

The 2 or 3 places where I disagree with Dawkins are only by "my" logical thinking. Otherwise I totally agree with him. Give it a few hundred years. The more educated people become, well... it will take quite some time.

What do we do now? Indeed, "religions often survive and thrive in a culture of ignorance." No dispute there and the question is how do we implement the system of change?

These posts help. Education helps. I mean, several hundred years from now, after most politicians admit that atheism doesn't further their careers, well, you'll still have some "Brave New World" people clinging to their guns and their religions.

Time is the only solution. It will take quite some time. The time may be never. There will always be people who just need that something extra. That something extra will be God. If it's not Zeus, Odin or Christ, it will be Harry The Cow. Or some such. Time. Give it a thousand years. You and I and others may well be shocked at the attitude change a millenium will construct. Or it may be busines as usual.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I do not, howver, think we should ban religion tomorrow.<!-/Quote-!>

That's mighty white of you to allow us poor ignorant knuckledraggers to maintain our own beliefs. Thank you.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I mean, several hundred years from now, after most politicians admit that atheism doesn't further their careers, well, you'll still have some "Brave New World" people clinging to their guns and their religions.<!-/Quote-!>

What a pompous, elitist, arrogant, ivory tower, liberal statement.

I think I better stop reading before I break my " No destroying people in game for political beliefs."

Pope: I can speak only for myself when I say I do not mean you offense. Although you certainly dont have a right to not be offended. Imo, there is nothing Sesshu or I have said which is offensive, especially in the quotes you have chosen. I do not, and have never, implied anyone is less intelligent because they hold religious beliefs. Besides, if you destory people in game because they offend you here than surely that is an example of overreactionary intolerance.

The fact is that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. That doesnt mean that religious people or not intelligent or intelligent people are not religious.

Also, would you care to comment about the statistical fallacy (card example, sample size from which conclusions are drawn) you commited earlier on?

Sesshu: I agree and disagree with you. I think that time is necessary but not sufficient. I think that education, principally science and ethics, are necessary for people to reject religious dogma.

I was an atheist from the moment I was born in the same sense a cat is a lifelong atheist. Something with no concept of god is as atheist as someone who disbelieves the existance of god. Rocks are atheist. Everyone, everywhere is born atheist and only become theist through the teaching of their parents. The correlation between one's own religion and the religion of one's parents is striking. If no theism existed I have no doubt that, in the absence of scientific knowledge, a god of sorts would be invented. This does not make theism any more true.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I think Dawkins is quite accurate when he describes religious upbringing as a form of child abuse.<!-/Quote-!>

Step back and think for a minute of who you are accusing of what in that statement.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I do not, howver, think we should ban religion tomorrow.<!-/Quote-!>

As though that is a civilized option?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

No "really moral way" to detach children from their parents and tell them they've been brainwashed. We would be shot dead on sight.<!-/Quote-!>

Kidnapping is considered a violent crime in my culture.

I don't wish to poison the waters, but I also believe that the best way to counter beliefs that one finds hostile or ignorant is not to ignore them, nor threaten violence or censorship, but simply to show them the light of day and discuss them reasonably...possibly some quirk of my own religious upbringing.

So if one acknowledges evolution, and also believes that humans are not especially different than other species, why would one care what other parents teach their children, if it's not directly threatening to oneself or one's family? If parents teaching their children the religious values and beliefs that they themselves hold to be true is evolutionarily disadvantageous, the practice will die out...and if it is advantageous, in opposing it one is fighting a losing battle against nature itself.

Not a flippant question, Maxwell: how do you know that cats are atheists? Especially in light of your statement that there is a negative correlation betweeen religiosity and intelligence.

You said "I kindly ask you not to use quotes from scientists in your arguements. Not only is this an argument from authority, you have generally quote mined, which is to take a quote which suits your arguement wholely out of a context which is entirely opposed to your arguement."

Im sorry, but evolutionist themselves say that they cannot prove evolution.
Can DNA form without proteins?
And proteins depend on DNA to form.
So which came first the chicken or the egg?

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

But nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures like birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

New Scientist noted that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time." But it admitted: "Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms ... known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years." And geneticist Stebbins writes: "No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants." He speaks of "the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms." "In fact," The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time."

Is that quote mining? Or is that just an excuse to deny what SCIENTISTS have said about the theory.

Do all scientist assert that the theory of evolution is the answer to life?

Mutations do not produce DIFFRENT species. They produce differences within a species, but never a new one. As stated before, a mutation never increases the amount of genetic information in a cell.

Spontaneous generation???

What about symbiosis? Stinging ants live in the hollow thorns of acacia trees. They keep leaf-eating insects off the tree and they cut up and kill vines that try to climb on the tree. In return, the tree secretes a sugary fluid that the ants relish, and it also produces small false fruit, which serves as food for the ants. Did the ant first protect the tree and then the tree rewarded it with fruit? Or did the tree make fruit for the ant and the ant then thanked it with protection? Or did it all chance to happen at once?

And just from these things are we asked to believe that all of this (any one event would be mathematically impossible, let alone several accidents or random changes in a step by step, or excuse me a random step of random acts) just happened, without a designer?

Of course we all have the right to believe what we choose, and should be respected for that. But it seems as if evolution requires much of the 'blind' faith that religious adherents must have.

Actually if you need to know Maxwell 'Danger' Powers, yes you do bore me so does this discussion because it does not tell me anything new. That is why I stopped posting here long time ago.

Then Buddhism was mentioned, and I posted what I think of it. Then I was told I was stupid so I retaliated.

/me pets Tuco....

Jojo: I do not make my statement lightly. Think of a cultural practice which not only encourages but demands ignorance of reality. A practice which encourages a feeling of superiority to and hatred of the other causing division where there should be none. A practice which is free from serious criticism. This practice can only be religion. Why do we allow religion to do this when we would prevent it if it were anything else (for instance: racism).

I do not wish to ignore nor censor nor threaten violence. I do not believe I have ever done so. I wish to get people to think about the things they accept without thinking. If someone comes away from the dicussion with their faith strengthened then I think that is great: They have thought honestly about their beliefs and come to a conclusion which I dont happen to agree with, which is fine.

If someone teaches their children to edify ignorance I care only so far as it affects me. By raising ignorance up to a virtue there is a very real danger that society is harmed. For one religious example I can cite anti-vacinnation campaigns. For a religious example I can cite abstinance only education. Since I desire society to not only survive, but thrive, it is in my interest to address ignorance whenever I see it.

Zdenek: Very well then. We can consider this matter closed.

Serpent: The very point I am making is that you quotes are inaccurate. You are trying to imply that there is some significant level of disagreement between scientists as to the validity of evolution. This is not true. Even if you found 100 scientists (or 'evolutionists') who thought evolution inaccurate, they could still be wrong (even so, look up 'project steve'). Science isnt a democracy and having any number of people supporting you doesnt make you right.

Your claim about the lack of transitional forms is flatly wrong. I direct you to the rather good videos on YouTube by AronRa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=channel_page). You ask for examples from giraffes, birds, amphibian pelvis and legs. Transitional forms of ALL of these things have been found. Therefore this arguement against evolution holds no validity.

Even if there were no found transitional forms and evolution was clearly a fabrication: How does that make what you are arguing any more true? Surely your arguement is still exactly as plausible and invisible pink unicorns.

Even if there were no transitional forms or any fossils at all, DNA evidence alone is sufficient to show that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life. We can measure the interrelatedness of species by the similarity in the DNA sequence even if we had no way of comparing anatomical features.

I have asked you to refrain from making assertions about mutations because you clearly lack the necessary knowledge and repeatedly fall into the same fallacies when you try to. So, I will explain a little background, tell me when you learn something new.

First some stucture basics: DNA consists of two, transiently bonded chains of base pairs (A; adenine. C; cytosine. G; guanine. T; thymine. In RNA, U; uracil, is used in place of T) linked by phosphodiester bonds. The chains are woven around each other to form a double helix. Each base of one strand 'base pairs' with each base of the other strand (A with T(or U) and G with C). There are many environmental causes of mutations, such as UV light, cancerous chemicals etc. But the most common cause of mutation is during replication. When DNA is replicated, each strand is used as a template to produce the correct strand. Sometimes, an incorrect base pair in incorporated, this occurs about 1 in every 10^6 bases. Several error checking mechanisms get this number down to 1 in every 10^9 bases or one per replication cycle (all numbers relevant in humans).

Now onto mutations: A mutation is an event which results in the change of the DNA sequence. As mentioned previously the most common time for mutation is during replication. A base can be added (insertion), removed (deletion) or changes (transversion). Changes in the DNA sequence are OVERWHELMINGLY neutral, they do not have a positive or negative effect, because they do not affect the structure or regulation of proteins. However, in the case that they do, natural selection occurs. Gradual changes plus natural selection based on environment and you get genetic change and variation within a species (see dogs). If you keep two populations separate for long enough they will INEVITABLY drift so far apart they are unable to interbreed. Thus there are now two species where once there was one. This is not the same as saying one species produced another, more accurately two species share a common ancestor. This process has been demonstrated in vertebrates such as lizards. If you accept change within species than you must accept changes that can create new species: They are the same thing, just different time scales. You arguement is analogous to saying that mineral accretion is insufficient to explain stalagmite growth because some stalagmites are so big and apparantly grow so slow that we cant know how they were created. Note the lack of referral to 'information' at anytime.

You symbiosis example is a strawman. No one claims it was one and then the other. Rather, small, gradual, mutually beneficial changes over a long time resulting in the form we observe today.

You are now frustrating me with you continued referral to the arguement from implausibility (otherwise known as the arguement from ignorance). Until you demonstrate you have read my post about the card example, I will not address this point further.

In short, every single point you made in your last point was fallacious. This is quite frustrating as I have addressed all but one of these points previously.

Serpent: I would also ask you not to copy whole paragraphs without citing sources. You should say: 'The following arguement which I found on usenet says what I mean...'.

Serpent: A few minutes of googling turned up this refutation of paragraph 29 of chapter 3 of a book called 'Creation'. Which matches the paragraph you wrote word for word. You should cite your sources instead of passing other's work of as your own.

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-4-transformation-of-species.html

C'mon, are you saying that everything you have 'learned', and have posted is of your own origin? It must be! Because it would be extremely unreasonable of you to expect me to cite all my sources and you not do the same! That would be hypocritical, and I'm sure that's not what you mean! I'm sorry I cannot name every place that I read some of the information. In fact some of the basic things I probably learned in elementary school, like cause and effect, and I do not remember all of my grade school instructors.

Some of the material I have found is in the book 'Creation', but it is by no means the only place.

What it all boils down to is you decide to put faith in random undirected chance, that things came about by something. And regardless of you refusing to admit that there are several creditable scientists that disagree on the theory of evolution, it does not change the fact. Just as there are many religions that disagree on various topics. So to make a decision, you must become educated on the subject. Of course I am not as educated in biology/evolution as some are, just like you may not be as educated in religious theologies as others are! But never-the-less I am not ignorant of the subject, in either case, religion or biology/evolution. Logic will not allow me to believe that all of this is random chance, life from lifelessness.

Oh and the best way to not get frustrated by what is posted is..... by not reading it. Yes you do have the choice. There could be many reasons for becoming frustrated, but don't let an a creationist do it to you! I doubt anybody here expects that by reading some post on a web/browser game to change their feelings to a great degree.