It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

page: 18
33
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

I guess you don't have an alternative, except creationism?... which isn't testable.

Or the funny thing is, that even if you came up with an alternative, new language, start from scratch type thing, looking at all the evidence objectively from a clean slate. It is likely that what you would come up with would look very similar to modern evolutionary theory.




posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: puzzlesphere

I guess you don't have an alternative, except creationism?... which isn't testable.

Or the funny thing is, that even if you came up with an alternative, new language, start from scratch type thing, looking at all the evidence objectively from a clean slate. It is likely that what you would come up with would look very similar to modern evolutionary theory.


Bingo!!



posted on Jun, 16 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
It is likely that what you would come up with would look very similar to modern evolutionary theory.


No not at all. Evolutionary theory relies on a multitude of random events to create the complexity we see in the world today. It is much more intuitive to begin reasoning that the complex world was created by an intelligent force.


which isn't testable.


But it is. Look all around you. The mathematical predictable of everything from planetary orbits, to chemical reactions, indicates that the laws of the universe act according to a very meticulous framework. Laws are made by intelligence, and are inherently the opposite of the chaos/randomness that evolutionary theorists claim created all life.

Take for example the human brain. What if I told an electrician I needed a house hooked up with over 100,000,000,000 wires (neurons) that connected the many information control centers all throughout my house. Not only that, I also need 1,000,000,000,000 supporting modulators (glial cells) all hooked up to allow my house to have artificial intelligence involving emotions, free will, and complex rationalizing ability. The electrician would laugh, because it obviously requires an intelligence far beyond their expertise to create such a thing.

It is beyond a doubt that our world required an intelligent creator, and by no means would this intelligent creator have used the crude theorized mechanisms of evolution to create their masterpiece.



posted on Jun, 16 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You clearly don't understand evolution.



posted on Jun, 16 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

"Because throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be. . . not magic!"
Tim Minchin, "Storm"

Big "but" there, but no... not testable... all you have described is an appeal to complexity.

So, I was right, no alternative, other than the fantasy of creation.



posted on Jun, 16 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

"Because throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be. . . not magic!"
Tim Minchin, "Storm"


The dude has never scratched the surface of quantum physics? The fact that you wake up every day is a miracle, and you take it for granted.


originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: cooperton

You clearly don't understand evolution.


Ahh yes, a common tactic. When you have nothing to say, just insult the intelligence of the person you are debating with. I just hope that no one reading this takes your unwarranted condescension as a position of authority. I would love for you to explain in your own words a feasible mechanism how protein modification via genetic mutations could accumulate neuronal mass... like enough mutations over time to add 60 billion neurons to transition some ape-like brain into the contemporary human brain exhibited today. How do you propose that gradual genetic mutations could do such a thing??? Because there is no research to suggest such a possibility
edit on 16-6-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Quantum physics (QP) is still a mystery but, every piece that we do understand, still hasn't proved to be magic... you're right though, it is possible that the god of the gaps may be hiding in QP somewhere. Based on our current understanding, probably not, but I guarantee there will be other mysteries beyond QP, where there still may be a gap for some greater intelligence to fit into... so, don't fret, the goalposts will be moved again, just as you just moved them to QP.

I didn't take richapau's comment as insulting your intelligence. You could be very intelligent, but still not understand something... and you are showing pretty clearly in this thread (and other threads) that you don't actually understand evolution. So, seems to be more of a statement of fact.

Babbling about "... protein modification via genetic mutations... neuronal mass... 60 billion neurons... (wow... so many!!!)... blah blah blah..." like you actually understand the topic (if you do, then write a peer reviewed paper on the topic, and blow this whole evolution thing out of the water!)... Again with the appeal to complexity.

You see god everywhere, I see natural processes everywhere...though, as of yet not even a hint of "god" (or this "universal intelligence") you so desperately desire, outside of human imagination...

...we'll keep looking.



posted on Jun, 17 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

Quantum physics (QP) is still a mystery but, every piece that we do understand, still hasn't proved to be magic... you're right though, it is possible that the god of the gaps may be hiding in QP somewhere.


I look at science as the unveiling of the complexity of the ordered creation. Mathematics are everywhere, and the core of the laws that keep all in synchrony.

You call it god of the gaps, but what about naturalism of the gaps? It is a grave assumption that evolution must have done it and we will find out how soon. At least God of the gaps assumes intelligence behind the obviously intelligible processes that keep biology and the cosmos in order.



You see god everywhere, I see natural processes everywhere...though, as of yet not even a hint of "god" (or this "universal intelligence") you so desperately desire, outside of human imagination...

...we'll keep looking.


I don't desperately desire it to be true, It is obvious and I see it everywhere and am simply repeating what I have observed.
edit on 17-6-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

God of the Gaps was coined by last century theologians (so not my god) as a viewpoint where "gaps" in scientific knowledge are taken as evidence of god's existence... which is exactly what you are doing in the last few posts.

By using Appeal to Complexity arguments (the eye, quantum physics, 60 billion neurons, etc.), you are representing a God of the Gaps viewpoint.

Naturalism of the Gaps would be... science... (which is incorporated in my life philosophy), where we slowly fill in the scientific gaps with knowledge... not god.

"At least God of the gaps assumes intelligence... "... that is not a good thing.

From this post, it is obvious that your base position is the "assumption of the existence of god", which is an inflexible and thus brittle philosophy ... basically in any possible logical argument... you lose.

Assumptions that exist in science will always be challenged, tested, refined and updated to account for new knowledge.

Great thing about science?... If evolution is wrong, then science will eventually prove it, itself (though, no evidence that it's wrong yet!), and if there is proof or evidence of god to be found, then science will eventually find it (no evidence of that yet either!).

Until one of those things happens, evolutionary theory is the best we got (better than the assumption of god, unless you are happy with the circle jerk of faith), and either accept it, or provide real evidence that will stand up to peer review for an alternative to evolution... or continue to rant and rave like a crazy person about how wrong evolution is, and slowly make theology and religion even less relevant than it already is.

God is the opposite of obvious... every time we think we have found it, it proves to be a natural process. Wow, that god guy.
edit on 17-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

From this post, it is obvious that your base position is the "assumption of the existence of god", which is an inflexible and thus brittle philosophy ... basically in any possible logical argument... you lose.



It is significantly more likely that an intelligent force is responsible for the order exhibited in the universe, rather than an unintelligent process.



posted on Jun, 17 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Then show me the numbers of this magnitude of significance?

You can't, because it is still a complete unknown... nothing more than a dream and a wish for it to be so, on your part.

Which is fine... you are free to faith and fantasy as much as you want... but they are not facts.

All of the facts seem to point towards natural processes,whether it be evolution or other, so far. Not god.



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

All of the facts seem to point towards natural processes,whether it be evolution or other, so far. Not god.

All of the facts seem to point towards the reality that 'nature did it'? Sounds a bit out of touch with reality, whether you put it the way you put it or the way it sounded like to me. I guess you were responding to the topic of the origin of the universe, although you did mention evolution. No matter how plausible Darwin’s theory of evolution may appear to be in the eyes of some scientists, they must ultimately face the question: Even if we assume that forms of living things evolved by natural selection, how did life get its start? In other words, the problem lies, not in survival of the fittest, but in arrival of the fittest and the first. However, as Darwin’s remarks on the evolution of the eye indicate, he was not concerned with the problem of how life began. He wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.”

French science writer Philippe Chambon wrote: “Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And today’s biologists have to humbly admit, with Prof. Jean Génermont of the University of South Paris in Orsay, that ‘the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.’”

In the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, I find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction just by chance. I wonder how any creatures could have survived in the battle of the survival of the fittest while they were still evolving eyes. I wonder how cells survived if they existed in an incomplete and inadequate state.

Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of “a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row.” That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it. Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in the same place! No meeting, no procreation!

Certainly, it stretches credulity to the limit to believe that life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of millions of gambles that paid off.

Facts and Legends:

“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

“There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive effort biologists have failed to validate [the Darwinian theory of evolution] in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

“The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

“Any science of the past . . . that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism.”—Origins Research.

“It is a legend . . . that Charles Darwin solved the problem of the origin of biological complexity. It is a legend that we have a good or even fair grasp on the origin of life, or that proper explanations refer only to so-called natural causes. To be sure, these and other legends of philosophical naturalism have a certain stature. One does not speak too harshly of them in polite company. But neither should one accept them uncritically.”—Origins Research.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. . . . There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that . . . the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

The theory of evolution is certainly a gambler’s dream. Why? Because according to the evolutionist, it wins even with astronomical odds against it.

Robert Naeye, the evolutionist mentioned earlier, writes: “Because evolution is primarily a game of chance, any seemingly minor past event could have gone slightly different, cutting off our evolutionary line before humans evolved.” But no, we are supposed to believe that every gamble paid off, millions of times. Naeye admits: “The long series of bottlenecks makes it clear that the emergence of intelligent life is far more difficult than scientists once thought. There are probably more obstacles that scientists haven’t even stumbled across yet.”

Some object that God is arbitrarily inserted “as an explanatory fix” wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. In other words, the claim is that such a divine Designer becomes the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if “God” were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out. But what are the gaps referred to here? Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution. They are fundamental breaches in aspects of biology that the theory of evolution has been incapable of bridging. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory (or naturalism, 'nature did it', “natural processes”, nature, Mother Nature/Gaia) their “God-of-the-gaps.”

Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs​—Can Evolution Bridge Them?

The Creator presented in the Bible is no “God-of-the-gaps.” He is well described as the One “who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them.” (Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24) For good reason, a first-century teacher wrote that God “created all things.”​—Ephesians 3:9.

In addition, God established “the statutes of the heavens,” the physical laws that govern matter and energy, which laws scientists are still studying. (Job 38:33) His design is comprehensive and purposeful, achieving his objective to form the earth to be inhabited by a staggering diversity of living things. After examining the matter fairly, millions of educated individuals have accepted that it is reasonable to agree with the Biblical poet who long ago said about God: “For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.
edit on 18-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Great walls of text... again!

A summary for other readers: All of that is essentially is an Appeal to Complexity argument (same as cooperton), followed by a trove of misinterpreted and cherry picked quotes.

Not a single fact to support your side of the argument at all.

Where are your facts? Where are your numbers? Where is anything other than saying the other side is wrong? Where is your explanation of the mechanisms used by "a designer" to craft the universe and its contents?

Essentially your post can be boiled down to "panspermia/evolution is wrong", "god did it".

edit on 18-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic

Where are your facts?

In my commentary all throughout this thread and other threads in this subforum, that's why they're so long, they contain lots of detailed facts compared with the claims and storylines from evolutionists specifically concerning these facts, or in spite of them (while they have significant bearing on their claim or some part of their storyline). Where are your facts that you were referring to? Perhaps that's why your comments are much shorter?

Where are your numbers?

Where are yours?

Where is anything other than saying the other side is wrong?

What an ironic way of describing things you have. Especially concerning the comment of yours that I responded to, in particular the dogmatic sweeping statement that I quoted that is so out of touch with reality (and the facts already discussed by me in this thread for example; conveniently ignoring those).

Where is your explanation of the mechanisms used by "a designer" to craft the universe and its contents?

Where is your explanation of the mechanisms used by 'Mother Nature' to craft the universe and its contents? Vague references to "natural processes" just won't cut it. Especially if the processes being referred to have a desctructive long-term effect that tears down rather than builds up (considering that the machinery and technnology of life is part of "its contents").

“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.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The process or mechanism of creation (engineering, construction) is a logical, rational and sufficient causal explanation for the origin of (systems of) machinery and technology, any machinery and technology; as this type of logic (including and based on general induction) has been used for centuries in the field of archaeology in order to tell the difference between what is caused by (the forces of) nature exclusively and what has an intelligent (human) cause (and then affected by natural processes afterwards).

Archaeologists draw conclusions about earlier civilizations, often from items that have lain buried for thousands of years. Imagine, for example, that an archaeologist has unearthed dozens of carefully cut stone blocks of precisely the same size neatly aligned on top of one another. They are also set out in a distinct geometric pattern that does not occur naturally. What would the archaeologist conclude? Would he attribute his find to coincidence? Most likely not. Rather, he would interpret it as evidence of past human activities, and that would be a reasonable conclusion.

To be consistent, should we not apply the same reasoning to the design manifest in the natural world? Many people have taken that view, including respected scientists.

Years ago, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Sir James Jeans wrote that in the light of advancing scientific knowledge, “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” He also stated that “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and that it provides “evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds.”

Other scientists have arrived at a similar conclusion since Jeans penned those words. “The overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design,” wrote physicist Paul Davies. One of the most famous physicists and mathematicians of all time, Albert Einstein, wrote: “The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensible is a miracle.” In the eyes of many, that miracle includes life itself, from its fundamental building blocks to the amazing human brain.

Is it reasonable to attribute such perfection of design and organization to blind chance? If you were to stumble across a highly technical manual a million pages thick and written in an efficient, elegant code, would you conclude that the book somehow wrote itself? What if that book were so small that you needed a powerful microscope to read it? And what if it contained precise instructions for the manufacture of a self-repairing, self-replicating intelligent machine with billions of parts, all of which had to be fitted together at precisely the right time and in the right way? To be sure, the notion that such a book just happened would not even enter one’s mind.

After examining current research on the inner workings of the cell, British philosopher Antony Flew, once a leading champion of atheism, stated: “The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), [show] that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew believes in “following the argument no matter where it leads.” In his case it led to a complete change in thinking, so that he now believes in God.

The human brain too leaves many scientists in awe. A product of DNA, the brain has been described as “the most complicated object in the universe.” Even the most advanced supercomputer looks positively primitive next to this approximately three-pound pinkish-gray mass of neurons and other structures. In the opinion of one neuroscientist, the more that scientists learn about the brain and the mind, “the more magnificent and unknowable it becomes.”

Consider: The brain enables us to breathe, laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with a sense of reverential awe. Is it reasonable​—indeed, consistent—​to attribute these abilities and capacities to blind evolutionary forces?

I know how you feel about it, but I can't find the logic or reason behind your dogmatic assertions, or if lucky enough to get one, your arguments supporting that view. Our Creator has given us the “intellectual capacity” to investigate the world around us and to find satisfying answers to our questions. (1 John 5:20) In this regard, physicist and Nobel laureate William D. Phillips wrote: “When I examine the orderliness, understandability, and beauty of the universe, I am led to the conclusion that a higher intelligence designed what I see. My scientific appreciation of the coherence, and the delightful simplicity of physics strengthens my belief in God.”

Two prominent scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator. Though Wickramasinghe and Hoyle continue to believe that evolution controls the development of life forms, their calculations of the odds against life itself starting spontaneously moved the professors to write: “Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect ‘deliberate,’ ” or created.
edit on 18-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I have given you facts and figures in many other threads including, but not limited to, a lizard in Australia transitioning from egg laying to live birth, a fish species all born as one gender hormonally flipping to another gender for the purpose of sharing genes and creating offspring (male/female precursor), a logical progression of how modern eyes in different species went through many useful stages in progressive species to get to their current point (not; it was a useless organ until... BAM!... EYE!... you creationists are too funny)... among many many more examples, all tested, verifiable, repeatable data sets.

Basically, I can't be bothered giving you facts and numbers that will be ignored anymore, rather I will just point out the glaringly obvious logical fallacy of your arguments. Reducing your walls of text to their essence, highlighting the fallacious elements hidden among your words that invalidate your entire argument.

The facts you suggest are yours, throughout these threads, are facts from evolution research that you are disputing... never a single fact from data created to support your creationist arguments... not one... ever.

I'm sick of hearing you say evolution is wrong, (fine, good, let's ignore it then), so I'm asking you to provide facts for an alternative?

If you can't then evolution stands strong in the face of your bleating.

The amusing thing is that you spend your time saying evolution is wrong, but never offer a viable alternative... other than belief... which is not a viable, testable alternative.
edit on 18-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Do you even understand the significance when someone points out one of your fallacious arguments?

Fallacies, are faulty argument typologies. As soon as you are caught in one, no matter how many words you use, you immediately lose the logically reasoned argument.

You say you provide facts, but in your last post, every single paragraph is either an Appeal to Authority, or an Appeal to Complexity... both PROVEN fallacious arguments, not a single actual fact.

Quoting other people's awe at the universe is also not facts. Mostly your quotes are absolutely misrepresented and cherry picked, and are contrary to the author's published bodies of work... additionally their statement's of awe are not facts, they are opinions, at best.
edit on 18-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere
Michael Behe would call what you're doing bluster. Except that implies according to the google dictionary "little effect". I think it's actually pretty effective as a method to distract from the issues. Along with it being an effective way to discredit someone or their views or what they are arguing for. You make it about them and what they're supposedly doing, so the discussion is nicely steered away from those considerations that I for example discussed on the previous page or in any of the comments you've been responding to now.

As those things are hardly ever discussed in detail in this subforum. Instead, it seems a database of accusations and ad hominems is being drawn from continuously and repetitively. Because:

Propaganda...it works!

If you cannot resist making this personal, I'm willing to admit that you're also coming across as quite fierce, disrepectful, arrogant/haughty (painting yourself superior to me and certain others intellectually and morally in terms of honesty and accuracy in describing the reality of a situation), headstrong, self-assuming, unreasonable, agitated emotionally and having your reason or false accusations and discrediting paintjobs regarding fallacies or supposed other flaws in my commentary guided by emotion or attempting to play on or agitating the emotions of others towards my commentary or that of anyone who disagrees with what you are arguing for or stating as if it's so; and not open to any agreement on important subjects or realities that defy and contradict evolutionary or naturalistic storylines for the origin of various things such as the universe or the life in it.

2 Timothy 3:1-4:

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,
edit on 18-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Two prominent scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator. Though Wickramasinghe and Hoyle continue to believe that evolution controls the development of life forms, their calculations of the odds against life itself starting spontaneously moved the professors to write: “Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect ‘deliberate,’ ” or created.

“It is quite a shock,” said Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy. The Sri Lankan-born astronomer explained: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it.”

He also said: “I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.” That is just the point made by another well-educated man who lived in Bible times: “[God’s] invisible attributes . . . have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason, in the things he has made.”​—Rom. 1:20, The New English Bible.

Two American researchers received the Nobel physics prize for their discovery of universal background radiation, which scientists claim proves that the universe came into existence as a “cosmic fireball.” Robert Jastrow, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writes: “It is the final scientific proof for the act of creation.” He says that “astronomers are curiously upset. They did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning of the world.” This, Jastrow declares, “poses enormous problems for scientists. . . . They ask, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the universe?”

“It is possible to be a scientist and believe that there is a God,” states the South African newspaper The Star. The article reported on a 90-​minute lecture by Professor David Block, an astronomer at Johannesburg’s University of the Witwatersrand. Block explained that science confirms how “finely tuned and balanced” the universe is. For Block and many other scientists, this clearly indicates purposeful design, which, in turn, strongly suggests a Designer. According to The Star, Block concludes that there is such overwhelming evidence for God’s existence “that a man who does not believe in a Creator would have to have more faith than one who does [believe in a Creator].”
edit on 18-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

That's hilarious... rather than give me a single fact about creationism, or a viable alternative to evolution (which I have asked for multiple times, and have never got a straight answer for), you turn victim and call me a big meanie for poking holes in your arguments.

Then you go all doom porny at the end, getting biblical end-timesy, cherry picking some words from a bible quote that you think describes me... by inference, suggesting I will be smited down by god in end times... essentially an ad hominen disguised as bible quote... nice.

What issues am I distracting from exactly?

People who are losing an argument often feel like they are getting attacked.

"... what they're supposedly doing... ", you mean what you're actually doing? Every paragraph in your last few posts have quite literally been quotes (Appeal to Authority), or questions on the complexity/impossibility of a phenomenon being natural/evolution (Appeal to Complexity).

I just pointed that out is all.

I am "... open to any agreement on important subjects or realities that defy and contradict evolutionary or naturalistic storylines (facts... you're right I won't be in agreement with storylines)... ", as you can see...

... I am till waiting on an answer to "What is a testable, viable alternative to evolution?"
edit on 18-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic

Great wall of text batman!

I somehow feel if you have to post so much to make your point, you may not have much of a point at all.

Can you summarise in a short paragraph or two?


Generally speaking, people that say the most, usually know the least. The guy can't make a single point without going off on dozens of unrelated tangents and side points. I had to stop reading his posts they were that bad. 90% of what he says is completely unrelated to the post he responds to. Nobody needs to dilute a discussion that badly if they don't have a dishonest agenda.
edit on 6 20 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)







 
33
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join