It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dragonridr
...The universe doesn't ask why humans were created they just were. The universe doesn't ask why energy works the way it does it just does. There is no why only how something occurs. In say physics you answer the when the how but there is no why it happened it just did because it could happen [by chance and necessity?].
Problem with nature or the universe given enough time anything and everything possible will happen.
So if you truly want to understand the universe stop looking for the why and learn about the how or your stuck wondering about questions where no answer will ever exist.
“We have a prior commitment . . . to materialism,” wrote evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin. “That materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Which View Fits All the Facts?
With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:
1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.
2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.
3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.
How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.
What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”
To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.
On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*—Isaiah 40:26.
Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.
Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.*
[1st footnote:] Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.
... these theories are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.
The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman [argued] that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.
Following on from chemical evolution came the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.
originally posted by: whereislogic
No need to shy away from the why question just because the 'by chance and necessity' (or either) argument doesn't work logically regarding a reasonable answer. The only* reasonable conclusion so far reached by those who have not shied away from the subject doesn't bite and it won't kill ye for considering it.
Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?
originally posted by: makalit
a reply to: dfnj2015
When the electron is going around atoms- how come it does not 'hit' the atom, and stay glued?
Why does it just continue to spin, why is the law working how it is
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic
See this is what i was talking about stupid claims that say god exists because metamorphosis.
And evolution cant explain this by the way it can.
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA (teacher of evolutionary philosophies, 'big shot' in terms of awards and honorary degrees, and prominent one among the philosophical naturalists and those who refer to themselves and eachother as "evolutionists")
In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.
Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,
This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: dragonridr
Switch to red herring mode? Boring...