Evolution 1, Creationism 0.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Got it in one -- well done!

I agree a lot of people are just matter. But whatever about RNA, don’t you agree that the universe let alone the earth is simply not old enough for even simple celled organisms to have evolved from RNA-DNA-etc… let alone complex organisms like trees, whales and humans. Even if there is no God, to believe that the immense complexity of life on earth and the delicate balance of life we see on our planet today just evolved by chance from un-living matter in an unguided and goalless process takes more faith than believing that a Supernatural creator set it in motion.

Anyway read this:

“RNA molecules are formed from three components: a sugar, a base and a phosphate group. In past research, chemists developed each of the components and then tried to put them together to make the complete molecule. “But the components are quite stable, and so they wouldn’t stick together,” Sutherland says. “After 40 years of trying, we decided there had to be a better way of doing this reaction.”

The team took a different approach, starting with a common precursor molecule that had a bit of the sugar and the base. “Basically, we took half a base, added that to half a sugar, added the other piece of base, and so on,” Sutherland says. “The key turned out to be the order that the ingredients are added and the way you put them together — like making a soufflé.”

Another difference is that Sutherland and his team added the phosphate to the mix earlier than in past experiments. Having the phosphate around so early helped the later stages of the reaction happen more quickly and efficiently, the scientists say.

The starting materials and the conditions of the reaction are consistent with models of the geochemistry of an early Earth, the team says.

“But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,” Ferris points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.”

Sutherland and his team can so far make RNA molecules with two different bases, and there are still another two bases to figure out. “It’s related chemistry,” Sutherland says. “That’s how it must have been in the very beginning — a series of fundamental reactions that could make all four types of RNA molecule.”

Once those RNA molecules formed, they would have had to string together to make multiple letters of the code, which could then make proteins. Proteins could then make all the components that make up a cell, and the process would continue from there.”

Like I said, it takes as much if not more faith to believe that non-living matter came together to eventually evolve into us without a guiding hand in the process than it does to believe that there is a Supernatural Creator who set it all in motion. Even if the process which produces RNA can be replicated (and we’ve seen above that that is not really what they have done in the lab) then you still need that RNA to link together in such a way that it can make up the billions of lines of code it takes to form protein which they need, so that that protein could then make up the other components that make up a cell and from there that cell needs to find a way to duplicate itself, and in turn the cells it morphs into must find out a way to come together to make up the other components that make up living things. Where is all this information coming from? What is the driving force behind it? How does this non living matter know what to develop into and evolve into creatures that will one day contemplate it?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree a lot of people are just matter. But whatever about RNA, don’t you agree that the universe let alone the earth is simply not old enough for even simple celled organisms to have evolved from RNA-DNA-etc… let alone complex organisms like trees, whales and humans.

Nope. If we believed that we wouldn't be atheists.

When you talk about the age of the universe you're missing one important factor, the size of the universe. If it was just earth then it would indeed be very unlikely but earth is one of trillions and trillions of planets in the universe. With chemical reactions happening on all of them all of the time, it was bound to happen somewhere. And once life has begun, evolution explains it quite nicely up to the present day. Before you suggest otherwise you should read up on it. It does not require a guiding hand

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said, it takes as much if not more faith to believe that non-living matter came together to eventually evolve into us without a guiding hand in the process than it does to believe that there is a Supernatural Creator who set it all in motion.

Life coming from non-life, while highly unlikely, is possible. A supernatural creator is by definition not possible (supernatural=above nature). It does not take more faith to believe in the possible over the impossible. No matter what way you look at it, an infinitely complex being that always existed and didn't itself have to be created is far less likely than the idea that an unlikely series of chemical reactions occurred some time in the last 14 billion years on one of the unimaginably large number of planets in the universe

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

How does this non living matter know what to develop into and evolve into creatures that will one day contemplate it?

Hows does Hydrogen and Oxygen know how to combine into water?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you talk about the age of the universe you're missing one important factor, the size of the universe. If it was just earth then it would indeed be very unlikely but earth is one of trillions and trillions of planets in the universe. With chemical reactions happening on all of them all of the time, it was bound to happen somewhere. And once life has begun, evolution explains it quite nicely up to the present day. Before you suggest otherwise you should read up on it.

I agree evolution is a good explanation as to how we arrived at the point we are now if there is no Creator.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Life coming from non-life, while highly unlikely, is possible. A supernatural creator is by definition not possible (supernatural=above nature).

If the supernatural is above nature, and all we can analyze and study is what is within nature, then how can you be so sure that the supernatural does not exist? I mean you'd have to know that there is no 'outside' nature to be able to assert that with any kind of certainty and how can you do that when the limits of your observational apparatus extends only to the limits within nature?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It does not take more faith to believe in the possible over the impossible.

Obviously, but you don't know that the supernatural is impossible, you can only take it on faith that there is no such thing. Your assumption is not based on evidence or observation and is therefore not even scientific.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No matter what way you look at it, an infinitely complex being that always existed and didn't itself have to be created is far less likely than the idea that an unlikely series of chemical reactions occurred some time in the last 14 billion years on one of the unimaginably large number of planets in the universe

How likely was it then that our universe should just pop into existence from a point when not even energy/space/matter and time existed?

darjeeling

The importance of the paper discussed here is that it showed a viable chemical route for natural formation of the the two RNA pyrimidine (U and C) bases from simple chemical precursors alone - a major hurdle to overcome in the formation of RNA.

Soul Winner wrote: »

[...] don’t you agree that the universe let alone the earth is simply not old enough for even simple celled organisms to have evolved from RNA-DNA-etc…

Why? How long is long enough, and what is your basis for judging? Gut instinct isn't sufficient.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said, it takes as much if not more faith to believe that non-living matter came together to eventually evolve into us without a guiding hand in the process than it does to believe that there is a Supernatural Creator who set it all in motion.

It takes no faith at all to say that we don't yet know how life began from non-life. What's wrong with that?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even if the process which produces RNA can be duplicated (and we’ve seen above that that is not really what they have done in the lab) then you still need that RNA to link together in such a way that it can make up the billions of lines of code it takes to form protein which they need, so that that protein could then make up the other components that make up a cell and from there that cell needs to find a way to duplicate itself, and in turn the cells it morphs into must find out a way to come together to make up the other components that make up living things. Where is all this information coming from? What is the driving force behind it? How does this non living matter know what to develop into and evolve into creatures that will one day contemplate it?

For life, RNA nucleotides still have to polymerise in an order that will give a functional sequence, but once that happens, it has been shown that RNA - unlike DNA - can have catalytic effects. This means it may have been able to do some of the jobs that proteins now do. Indeed, catalytic RNAs still play an important role in catalysing protein production in present-day cells.

There's no need for 'billions of lines of code' either. Perhaps a couple of hundred nucleotides could produce a functional RNA. Also, fully functional, independent modern organisms like bacteria operate with genomes thousands of times smaller than you suggest.

There's some work done on cell formation that shows that lipids - the molecules that form your cell membranes - can spontaneously form round vesicles that look rather like cell membranes. This would give a simple mechanism for generating the first proto-cells - membrane-bounded vesicles that have captured replicating RNAs and other molecules from the surrounding 'soup'.

There's no need to invoke faith or belief in any of this. What the scientists are aiming to do is to model what might possibly have occurred. Chances are we'll never be able to say definitively what did happen, but we may in future be able to say that we have a plausible and complete mechanism for the generation of life. Science will never give you a final answer, and we should simply recognise that. You, though, seem to think we must have certainty. Why?

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Hows does Hydrogen and Oxygen know how to combine into water?

How, when there was no laws of physics, did a universe governed (as far as we can tell) by the laws of physics, just pop into existence from a state of non-existence?

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

How, when there was no laws of physics, did a universe governed (as far as we can tell) by the laws of physics, just pop into existence from a state of non-existence?

Did it?

Also:

Soul Winner wrote: »

How, when there was no laws of physics, did a universe governed (as far as we can tell) by the laws of physics,

WTF?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

don’t you agree that the universe let alone the earth is simply not old enough for even simple celled organisms to have evolved from RNA-DNA

No, of course I don't agree -- don't you remember anything I write?

Though I will agree that if you don't know anything about evolution, then what it achieves certainly seems magic.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said, it takes as much if not more faith to believe that non-living matter came together to eventually evolve into us without a guiding hand in the process than it does to believe that there is a Supernatural Creator who set it all in motion.

Ah, a favourite creationist sleight-of-hand -- evolution = "faith" :rolleyes:

For the record, no I don't have "faith" that "non-living matter came together to eventually evolve into us". I simply reckon that of all the available explanations, the one proposed by evolution is the most elegant, economical, useful and well-supported one. If something better comes along, then I've no doubt that I'll ditch evolution and go with the better one.

No "faith" required.

AtomicHorror

kiffer wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

Wherever J C went, I reckon.

OH NOES IT'S THE RAPTURE!

Wolfsbane must be gutted. Left Behind!

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

How, when there was no laws of physics, did a universe governed (as far as we can tell) by the laws of physics, just pop into existence from a state of non-existence?

The question you ask is too specific. We don't know that the universe came from nothing or even that the universe had a start. We know there was an event we call the big bang, but what it was still eludes us. Was it the beginning of the universe or was it just a another event in a long chain of events that precede it. We can't answer these questions and we may never answer these questions, and it's not shameful to admit it.

As for whether the supernatural exists. Maybe the more pertinent question from our perspective is could we tell the difference? and if not why does it matter?

Genghiz Cohen

robindch wrote: »

For the record, no I don't have "faith" that "non-living matter came together to eventually evolve into us". I simply reckon that of all the available explanations, the one proposed by evolution is the most elegant, economical, useful and well-supported one. If something better comes along, then I've no doubt that I'll ditch evolution and go with the better one.

No "faith" required.

Oh ho!
If the wife/GF sees that!

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

How, when there was no laws of physics, did a universe governed (as far as we can tell) by the laws of physics, just pop into existence from a state of non-existence?

We don't know, and neither do you. But a little while ago, we didn't know you could get RNA out of a soup of primordial molecules. We once didn't know that it could polymerise all by itself. We're rapidly filling one gap, so I wouldn't be to precious about the other ones.

pts

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even if there is no God, to believe that the immense complexity of life on earth and the delicate balance of life we see on our planet today just evolved by chance from un-living matter in an unguided and goalless process takes more faith than believing that a Supernatural creator set it in motion.

No it doesn't! I wrote a long answer to justify my statement but realised that it can be easily summarised. Science explains things, God does not!
Try applying some level of scrutiny to your God hypothesis. The God hypothesis doesn't give us any way of evaluating it truthfullness. In essence it's only a unfounded opinion that can't further our understanding in any way of how the universe came to be.

ozzirt

I'd say that this cartoon sums it up pretty well.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the supernatural is above nature, and all we can analyze and study is what is within nature, then how can you be so sure that the supernatural does not exist? I mean you'd have to know that there is no 'outside' nature to be able to assert that with any kind of certainty and how can you do that when the limits of your observational apparatus extends only to the limits within nature?

I didn't actually say it doesn't exist, I said it's not possible because what's possible is defined by the laws of nature, which do not apply to the supernatural. If something can be explained within the laws of nature I see no reason to invoke the far less likely supernatural to explain it

Soul Winner wrote: »

Obviously, but you don't know that the supernatural is impossible, you can only take it on faith that there is no such thing. Your assumption is not based on evidence or observation and is therefore not even scientific.

As I said, it is by definition impossible. The whole reason Jesus was accepted as god was that he did things that are considered impossible. Otherwise he'd just be a philosopher

Soul Winner wrote: »

How likely was it then that our universe should just pop into existence from a point when not even energy/space/matter and time existed?

I never said it did. My position on how the universe came into being is "I don't know" which does not automatically translate to "the christian god as described in the bible did it". The "I don't know" position is the only logical one a human being can currently take on the creation of the universe

Sam Vimes

pts wrote: »

No it doesn't! I wrote a long answer to justify my statement but realised that it can be easily summarised. Science explains things, God does not!
Try applying some level of scrutiny to your God hypothesis. The God hypothesis doesn't give us any way of evaluating it truthfullness. In essence it's only a unfounded opinion that can't further our understanding in any way of how the universe came to be.

Exactly. Soul Winner is dismissing established science because it doesn't fit with what he wants to be true. Honestly Soul Winner, if you're going to argue against evolution you might as well be arguing that gravity doesn't exist. Evolution is an observable fact. Why do you think we need a new flu vaccine every year and why oh why do we have wisdom teeth and an appendix when they serve no function other than to cause dental problems/randomly kill you?

As for evolution=faith. I suppose you could say that if I let go of something, I have faith that it will fall. Just because it's happened every time anyone has ever dropped something on the planet earth in the history of mankind doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to happen when I let go of this specific thing. So yes I admit it, I have faith in gravity :pac:

Naz_st

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the supernatural is above nature, and all we can analyze and study is what is within nature, then how can you be so sure that the supernatural does not exist? I mean you'd have to know that there is no 'outside' nature to be able to assert that with any kind of certainty and how can you do that when the limits of your observational apparatus extends only to the limits within nature

That sort of thinking is a requirement for religious belief, to such a degree that is lauded as paramount virtue (faith). But does it not bother you that religious discourse is the only domain where an argument from faith is proposed, even from the adherents of that religion? I mean ask any Christian whether they believe in Unicorns, Dragons or the loch ness monster, and the likely response will be "no". If pressed as to why, the likely response will boil down to "there's no evidence of any of those things".

For example, do you believe in:
- Astrology
- Homeopathy
- Phrenology
- Telekenisis
- Palm Reading
- UFOs

If you answered "No" to any of those - why not?

Any court of law in Western countries is foundationally based on evidence, and in most cases overwhelming evidence is required before something is taken as being true. Most religious people see the necessity of "beyond reasonable doubt" in exactly the same way as most atheists do. But when it comes to the God question, everything switches around and you end up with statements like: "how can you be so sure that the supernatural does not exist?". Well, it is not needed to explain anything, there's no evidence to suggest it, it is definitionally not compatible with everything we know about the physical universe, so why should anyone even entertain the notion in the first place?

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

]

.....


Like I said, it takes as much if not more faith to believe that non-living matter came together to eventually evolve into us without a guiding hand in the process than it does to believe that there is a Supernatural Creator who set it all in motion.

.......

Severe demotion for an omnipresent, omnipotent God to be reduced to a mere ceremonial role of 'cutting the red tape' at the beginning of the universe.

For the Ego-manic God we all know and love from the OT it must be an especially tough blow.

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

Severe demotion for an omnipresent, omnipotent God to be reduced to a mere ceremonial role of 'cutting the red tape' at the beginning of the universe.

For the Ego-manic God we all know and love from the OT it must be an especially tough blow.

Someone who believes in such a god isn't even called a theist, they're called deists:

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme God created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. Deists generally reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs - such as by miracles and revelations. These views contrast with a dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Judeo-Christian,[1][2] Islamic and other theistic teachings.

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Someone who believes in such a god isn't even called a theist, they're called deists:

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme God created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. Deists generally reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs - such as by miracles and revelations. These views contrast with a dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Judeo-Christian,[1][2] Islamic and other theistic teachings.

Even for theists it is the get out of jail free card upon losing a debate. Played in textbook fashion by Soul Winner after the not enough time for evolution argument was shot down in flames.

Zillah

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why do you think we need a new flu vaccine every year and why oh why do we have wisdom teeth and an appendix when they serve no function other than to cause dental problems/randomly kill you?

Actually they have a pretty good explanation for the appendix now. The digestive tract has a whole bunch of beneficial bacteria that help in digestion, and when a person has a severe bout of diarrhoea the population gets annihilated. But the appendix keeps a reserve stock which then repopulates the rest of the GI tract. As you can imagine, during our species' past this would have been a serious issue given the difficulties in ensuring safe food and water supplies, so evolution saves the day.

That or God put it there for some reason

Coriolanus

Zillah wrote: »

Actually they have a pretty good explanation for the appendix now. The digestive tract has a whole bunch of beneficial bacteria that help in digestion, and when a person has a severe bout of diarrhoea the population gets annihilated. But the appendix keeps a reserve stock which then repopulates the rest of the GI tract. As you can imagine, during our species' past this would have been a serious issue given the difficulties in ensuring safe food and water supplies, so evolution saves the day.

That or God put it there for some reason

Even that though, is a pretty good arguement against intelligent design. Useful in our past or not, it's generally something you can live without and besides, it stills blows up in a good proportion of people, which before modern medicine was potentially lethal.

sink

Zillah wrote: »

Actually they have a pretty good explanation for the appendix now. The digestive tract has a whole bunch of beneficial bacteria that help in digestion, and when a person has a severe bout of diarrhoea the population gets annihilated. But the appendix keeps a reserve stock which then repopulates the rest of the GI tract. As you can imagine, during our species' past this would have been a serious issue given the difficulties in ensuring safe food and water supplies, so evolution saves the day.

That or God put it there for some reason

If that's case the risk of death from diarrhoea must have been far greater than the risk of death from a burst appendix, either way not a nice way to go.

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Actually they have a pretty good explanation for the appendix now. The digestive tract has a whole bunch of beneficial bacteria that help in digestion, and when a person has a severe bout of diarrhoea the population gets annihilated. But the appendix keeps a reserve stock which then repopulates the rest of the GI tract. As you can imagine, during our species' past this would have been a serious issue given the difficulties in ensuring safe food and water supplies, so evolution saves the day.

That or God put it there for some reason

Ah it all makes sense now. I thought it had something to do with digesting grass.

Soul Winner

Can't reply all posts so I'll just give a general view on where I stand on all this. For one, I am not YEC nor do I believe that there is no evidence for evolution but I am convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and this by way of much study and logical deduction from the evidence.

When one studies the evidence for a particular thing and comes away convinced of one conclusion or the other, then one is deemed reasonable in their approach and sound in their stand, but when one uses this same approach in relation to the subject of the resurrection of Jesus, then one is deemed unreasonable because everyone knows that resurrections cannot happen, so there’s no point in even studying it.

I know that resurrections don't just happen, and the story of Jesus never claims that His resurrection just happened either, rather that it was God who raised Him from the dead. So until somebody can come along and prove to me that God does not exists only then can my belief in Him be unfounded or mis-founded. Now a lot of people say that they cannot prove God does not exist but I say you can. You can at least prove that that the Christian God doesn’t exist just by tearing apart the resurrection of Jesus story. Prove that didn’t happen and there you are. The problem is that nobody ever bothers. Well a few have and ended up convincing themselves that it was true after all but for the most part people don’t even give the subject the time of day.

But the supernatural resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the only ONE explanation that explains some basic settled facts. 1) The Disciples' genuine believed that Jesus was the Son of God. 2) His tomb was empty. 3) The rise of early Christianity in a world totally and utterly apposed to it, who used torture and death to dissuade anyone from converting to it. If anyone can explain these three simple facts with ONE natural explanation then I can be done with Christianity. Until I hear ONE natural explanation that can explain all these facts then I will stop blabbing on about Christianity.

If all three facts cannot be explained with ONE natural explanation then why is it so unreasonable to accept the ONE and original supernatural explanation that explains them all? That does not mean that I think that evolution is false, it just means that a God is implied, and no matter how the universe and our earth came to be the way it is today, it was done by Him. In short you will never convince me that there is no Christian God by going via scientific theories, you will need to study the resurrection, and by logical deduction show me that there is ONE perfectly natural explanation for all the facts just mentioned.

And that is just giving three, there are other facts like the genuine belief on the part of the disciples that they saw Jesus alive again after His crucifixion. Most people who read the record agree that it is unlikely that they were lying about this too, if you think they were then what do you base that on? If you don't then how do you explain this fact and all the other facts with ONE natural explanation?

I say ONE natural explanation because you could explain all them with many different natural explanations, but not one of those natural explanations would explain ALL the facts, plus they would also contradict each other. For example you might be able to explain the empty tomb by saying that the disciples stole the body but then that means that they must have been lying about His post mortem appearances. Or you could say that the post mortem appearances were a result of hallucinations but then how does that explain the empty tomb? And on we can go. To explain to me using ONE natural explanation for these facts or even show that they are not facts at all, then that is what will convince me that there is no Christian God. I don’t need scientific theories, I need the resurrection to be disproven to a degree of no reasonable doubt by a process of logical deduction based on the evidence.

Yikes, sorry for the derailment of the thread :eek:

Zillah

sink wrote: »

If that's case the risk of death from diarrhoea must have been far greater than the risk of death from a burst appendix, either way not a nice way to go.

Interesting point actually. It's hard to imagine that "Oh no I don't digest very well!" is a bigger problem than "An organ just exploded infectious bacteria into my abdomen".

Perhaps the fact that appendicitis occurs in 25 of 10,000 is important, considering that severe diarrhoea would be essentially 100% in ancient populations and probably occurring far more often that once. Being able to digest your food properly and get back on your feet after illness could well be worth playing the appendix-Russian-roulette game.

Anyway, I didn't intend to railroad the thread into hypothetical evolutionary biology. You may now return to lambasting Soul Winner.

Owen

Soul Winner wrote: »

I am convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and this by way of much study and logical deduction from the evidence.

I see your problem now. Evidence eh? I think what detectives and researchers call Evidence, and what you say is Evidence are two completely different things.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can't reply all posts so I'll just give a general view on where I stand on all this. For one, I am not YEC nor do I believe that there is no evidence for evolution but I am convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and this by way of much study and logical deduction from the evidence.

If there was enough evidence to make a logical deduction that Jesus rose from the dead, it would be taught in history class, not religion class

Soul Winner wrote: »

So until somebody can come along and prove to me that God does not exists only then can my belief in Him be unfounded or mis-founded

Is there anything else in your life which you hold to this standard of evidence? And if a claim with extremely little supporting evidence must be absolutely disproven before you will reject it, do you really think that's logical?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the supernatural resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the only ONE explanation that explains some basic settled facts. 1) The Disciples' genuine believed that Jesus was the Son of God. 2) His tomb was empty. 3) The rise of early Christianity in a world totally and utterly apposed to it, who used torture and death to dissuade anyone from converting to it. If anyone can explain these three simple facts with ONE natural explanation then I can be done with Christianity. Until I hear ONE natural explanation that can explain all these facts then I will stop blabbing on about Christianity.

Those are not facts. They are claims made in a 2000 year old book


As for the rise of christianity, how do you explain the rise of all the other religions?

And how do you explain how the followers of all the other religions genuinely believing in their leader?

Thousands of religions have risen with totally devoted followers throughout history, that is quite a common occurrence but I've yet to see a resurrection. Before I explain how it could have happened then you must explain how it happened all those other times

darjeeling

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can't reply all posts so I'll just give a general view on where I stand on all this.

[off-topic resurrection justification snipped]

Yikes, sorry for the derailment of the thread :eek:

Can't reply to all? More like any! Now, where were we? Ah yes, uracil and cytosine...

pts

Soul Winner wrote: »

I say ONE natural explanation because you could explain all them with many different natural explanations, but not one of those natural explanations would explain ALL the facts, plus they would also contradict each other.

Why does it have to be ONE natural explanation, that doesn't make much sense.
You could demand ONE natural explanation for thunder, rainbows and yearly harvest, for example the Norse Gods. HOWEVER just because you can explain them all with one explanation doesn't make that explanation superior to one explanation for each phenomenon.:rolleyes: