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.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 17
26
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Thus, if one speaks about life coming about by 'chance', he is saying that it came about by a causal power that is not known. Could it be that some are virtually spelling “Chance” with a capital letter—in effect saying, Creator? What do you think?


Yes, it came by causal power that is not known yet. But I prefer to call it "laws of chemistry", not creator.

We dont know how first life arised, so it is meaningless to talk about any probabilities.


Thank you Maslo for your honesty.

So what you are actually saying is the 'causal power' that originated life is no other than the “laws of chemistry”? Do all evolutionist believe this or are they in agreement with what you think?

If so, you are confronted again by another probability issue. That is, who made the “laws of chemistry”. Equally of importance is what are these “laws of chemistry” that you believe originated life and what are the chances of these “laws” forming together by chance?

I'm sure you will agree with me that 'laws' are set of rules, 'established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts.'

ardictionary.com...

Thus if there's a law, then it follows that there's a mind to formulate the law, if there's a mind, then there's a brain that holds the mind, if there's a brain then there's a head and body – an intelligent entity. Sounds logical?

Putting in a practical way – if there's a traffic law, then there must be a body of people who created and formulated this law. A body of people who has the power to implement and enforce the law to govern, regulate and protect the lives of it's citizens.

Opposite of law is lawlessness/anarchy. Which one do you think governs the universe?

As for this statement: “We dont know how first life arised...” this is the fundamental reason why evolution/abiogenesis is in disarray and cannot stand on it's own for it's very foundation is missing.

Logical reasoning: A building can only stand if there's a foundation. The stronger the foundation the stronger the building.

Illogical reasoning: A building can and will stand without any foundation.

So Maslo, the way I see it, since you “..dont know how first life arised...” then you are putting your trust/belief on a baseless teaching.

On the other hand the Bible tells us the answer simply and understandably. It confirms the observations of science, as well as our own, that nothing comes into existence by itself. That is,

that:

“Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”—Hebrews 3:4.

Here's what an article from The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor noted, that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments:

“Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”


Is there any truth to the above statements?

Ty,
edmc2




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


There are laws made by man...that change and evolve.

There are laws of the Universe, that seem to be based on cause and effect.

It could be that these laws are the foundations of our universe, and are infinite.

We do not know for sure that before our universe, there was not a prior something that collapsed and formed what we see and know now as our Universe.

There is nothing that points to the fact that something come from nothing.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by edmc^2
 


There are laws made by man...that change and evolve.

There are laws of the Universe, that seem to be based on cause and effect.

It could be that these laws are the foundations of our universe, and are infinite.

We do not know for sure that before our universe, there was not a prior something that collapsed and formed what we see and know now as our Universe.



There is nothing that points to the fact that something come from nothing.


Hi Leo,
Nice conversing with u again.

There's truth to what you said that:


There is nothing that points to the fact that something come from nothing.


Thus, it follows then that the source of life MUST be an "ALWAYS EXISTING" source - an always existing intillegent entity with the power to create life.
For if this is not so, then what is the alternative - NOTHING, absolutely nothing. This is what abiogenesis/evolution are based on - a causal agent.

Makes sense?

ty,
edmc2



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Are you saying that evolutionists dont think that its possible that the Universe 'always has been and always will be'...I know there are some evolutionists that think space is infinite.

The 'big bang' had to evolve from something
Be it God (your argument) or be it just a part of the on going cycling of space and time.

Both arguments have grounds...but neither can be proven.

See I believe in both, God and evolution....but I use the word emanation instead. You have a 'something' that flows or evolves or moves to and fro to another 'something'. It emanates itself, energy changes forms all based on the laws of nature.


I dont picture it as 'and in one moment, God decided to create, and poof, he created it.

I think the laws of the Universe, show us things about God. Shows us, recycling of all energies. Shows a refining, retuning. There may have been space, as long as there was God. There may of been energy in some form as long as there was God. God, the life force of all things, moves to and fro....creates friction (still this is a 'cause and effect' though)....movement and sound creates changes. For what once was, will now be something different, due to movement and sound and waves and ect....too much quantum stuff that I will sound like I am rambling


I find orders and cycles as much a part of God as anything of life. Even God, may very well be more of a order and cycle kind of guy (though I dont see Thee as a female or male) instead of being this something that makes 'choices' and 'decides' and then creates. It may be more of a orderly process of 'being' then what we can understand.

Even if we had proof that life is a 'always existing source' doesnt prove God...impo.

Always nice crossing paths with you as well


[edit on 3-8-2010 by LeoVirgo]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So what you are actually saying is the 'causal power' that originated life is no other than the “laws of chemistry”? Do all evolutionist believe this or are they in agreement with what you think?


Yes, thats what I think. Most of evolutionists are religious people, so they may believe that god somehow created basic laws of physics in the first instant of this reality, and life (and everything else) arised from these laws.

An evolutionist may also believe that first life was created by god, and then evolved into present variety on its own. This view contradicts the idea of abiogenesis.




Thus if there's a law, then it follows that there's a mind to formulate the law, if there's a mind, then there's a brain that holds the mind, if there's a brain then there's a head and body – an intelligent entity. Sounds logical?


No, it does not sound logical to me, because a natural law exists without being established by an intelligent entity. Think about mathematical laws - do we need an intelligent entity to establish and enforce that a ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter is pi?




Putting in a practical way – if there's a traffic law, then there must be a body of people who created and formulated this law. A body of people who has the power to implement and enforce the law to govern, regulate and protect the lives of it's citizens.


There is a profound difference between natural and legal laws, do not be confused by the same word used - there is noone enforcing natural laws, why should there be anyone to create them then?




So Maslo, the way I see it, since you “..dont know how first life arised...” then you are putting your trust/belief on a baseless teaching.


Yes, I said that abiogenesis is not proven, and I think it is entirely possible that first life on Earth was created, for example, by aliens. Thats why it is a belief, and I can admit it. Can you?

On the other side, evolution is proven by many facts, so it is not a baseless teaching at all. We know it happens.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Hi Edmc^2,

I came across your thread and made a video a while back on the human body that falls in line with your OP that some may find interesting.



The human body is a temporal piece of technology that we occupy. Though for humans on earth it doesn't appear to be technology, instead it's looked at as 'Natural' or an evolved natural thing that just formed and came from nothing. For the Creators/Designers on their level it is technology/creation. Humans on earth are still working on creating intelligent interactive robots but someday they will reach a level of achieving greater things than just robots resembling live organic lifeforms (technology) (Creation).

The entire Universe people see is an interactive system of technology on many levels. But for (many) humans on earth it's seen as a big bang that came from nothing and somehow by chance everything just happened. I would think that it's easier for people to believe in Santa Claus then everything suddenly coming from nothing by chance.

Best Wishes!



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ET_MAN
 





I would think that it's easier for people to believe in Santa Claus then everything suddenly coming from nothing by chance.


Not by chance. By physical, chemical and biological laws. Chance alone cannot accomplish such a feat, and no evolutionist thinks we are here just "by chance".



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Full Thread Title:Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, illogical science and most of all based on DESIRE.


By your "logical reasoning," the creator must be more complicated that what he is creating, correct?

Then, God must be more complicated than Man.

And since He's more complicated, he must have been created as well.

Please add that to your examples.

Complex patterns and behaviors can arise naturally from simple systems. Therefore, the complexity of something is not a valid argument for the necessity of a designer.

So, your reasoning is illogical and based on a DESIRE to prove that there is a God.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Here's what an article from The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor noted, that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments:

“Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”


A law professor might not fully understand evolutionary theory. Just a hunch. Unless, of course, he's studying evolutionary biology at the expense of his continuing education on law...in which case he's not terribly qualified to continue in his current position.

But his argument could easily be turned around:

"Intelligent Design is having serious trouble with their lack of evidence - but its proponents don't want an honest debate that might undermine their faith."

The fact is that some people's faith in God is so weak that they're threatened by people not sharing their belief. They've grasping at straws to find some "proof" of a deity, when faith alone should sustain them.

They've gone from teaching Creationism to ID, and from saying that Creationism should be taught IN PLACE OF evolution to saying we should teach BOTH and thus "teach the controversy." It would be sad if they weren't so terrible at trying to insinuate themselves into legitimate scientific debate.

Luckily, I am not so full of doubt about my own personal faith that I'm threatened by someone else of a different faith or no faith at all.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


I think the biggest thing the arguement may boil down to is the interpretation of possibility regarding gene mutation. With gene mutation you must also take into consideration that generally it tends to be defective, unless it is just an underlying trait with a low chance of coming through, but even then you have to still take into consideration thats just one genotype that was already present in the organism!

Just saying with an example of say two genetically similar turtle parents that have 100 offspring: 79 of those offspring come out just like the parents, no real genetic difference whatsoever. 6 of them didnt hatch, and 9 of them died while going out towards sea, and 3 come out with larger stronger fins, and 3 with stronger harder shells. You must also recognize that this is a rather generous estimation of positive adaptation within one generation.

As we can see today, the beauty of this has allowed us to see many different kinds of animals, such as with dogs we have german shepards, shih-tzus, huskies, pitbulls, pomeranians, dobermans, etc, and with cats we have the average housecats of the tabby, calico, siamese, to the lions in the jungle or bobcats. But there are all still felines. As are all of the dogs still canines.

Your explanation tries to state that by the process of billions of years, it is made possible that no less ALL live originated from a primordial ooze with complex protein strands which formed single celled organisms, to multicelled organisms, to somehow changing from asexual organisms to sexual organisms, all the while maintaining all of the past "inferior" traits which had been evolved from, changing entire genetic structure into a complete different organism more so! Do you not see the trouble of those very seldom organisms, happening to find one with the same genetic make-up of its own that it has to mate with, then the possible negative genetic traits that come along with altered dna, just all of these things happening is a literal impossible chance. As well to this, we only have fossil records of whole species, rather than the transitional phases, you could argue radio polonium halos, we could look at polystrata fossils and in one example google about a polystrata forest which contained trees that were permineralized in numerous layers of rock which previously indicated large caps of time periods of organisms living and dying, though the tree lived through and fossilized with all of it.

And if you want to talk about cosmological evolution, thats an entire subject in of itself, and even if were possible, how could the elements be with that case? With our narrow minds as humans we cannot begin to grasp the concept of God and infinite, but atleast we can grasp that evolution definitely relies on the cause and effect notion. An extreme cause and effect notion. If you look at the bible it mentions that the universe is constantly stretching, so as for distance of the stars that could be explained through the process of 10,000 or so years IF thats the length of creation thus. Heck getting into quantum-mechanics almost if you truly look at it, everything that is created that we know in life is all created in God. There are no bounds in the universe that outstretch Him. We are all living in Him and His creation, He is a God of Spirit, and we all have spirits as well, and there is something to recognize as sin which builds a barrier between us and Him, and just as with law, there is consequence of breaking it. Either Christ takes it, or we have no other choice but to bear it ourselves. Thats a discussion for another time though. Peace



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Creationist I can prove to you that what you believe (creation) is based on illogical reasoning.

Here are the rules.

1.Pick the answer from the list that you believe explains the figures below. Pick one or two or all of the figures, your choice.
2.Explain why your answer is the correct one.
3.Use logical reasoning and true science (as oppose to junk science) to explain your answer.


Question one.

Figure : God.


The Answers:
a) Maker needed.
b) Maker not needed.






THEY ALL REQUIRE A CREATOR. The complex the 'thing' the complex the design becomes, the higher the knowledge is required.


Using your "logic" God or a creator would have to be the most complex/knowledgeable "thing" I can think of .. until I think of his creator .. and what created God's creator ?

Do not talk about evolution being illogical, when you have said nothing more then, "I don't understand ... so God did it".


[edit on 6-8-2010 by nophun]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Haha I love the video above my post

Now Ed, I just recently read some of your posts supporting the creationist theory.. and I quickly got an account so I could reply. You were saying that evolution can't explain complex things like the origin of the universe or how black holes are made and so on. Your argument is that since man has no other explanation for how such complex things came to be, there must be a creator.

Many ancient civilizations looked at the world and didn't know how to explain many of the things that happened because they didn't understand how they worked. Things like the wind, volcanoes, earthquakes, the sun, the moon.. no one knew what made them. They idolized gods that controlled many of these things. But science eventually explained these things. Volcanoes and earthquakes are both effects of the earths plates shifting beneath us. We found that we orbit around the sun and that the moon shifts the tides and creates wind currents. We are still figuring out the universe.

Is it so hard to beleive that just by chance, we exist on this earth. There are very few planets in the whole universe that we know of that can support life. The conditions were just perfect and we eventually evolved over billions of years from an ancient single cell organism.

My point is if there is a intellegant design to all of this..

Why are there diseases?

Why are there natural disasters?

Why is there not more evidence of God, why are we supposed to beleive people that lived 2000 years ago that he exists?

I could go into specifics

I look forward to arguements



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Interesting video there nophun, but lacks substance if your intention was to educate. If on the other hand your goal was to poke fun of Creation, funny but weak presentation imho. Why? Read on please.

As for your question

.. until I think of his creator .. and what created God's creator ?


I believed I've answered it several times already but for your edification let me address it again (I’ll include some of my previous post with edits).

Now, if I say God was created by someone higher than him, then the next obvious question will be (as you've already indicated) who created the higher being, and the next obvious question will be - who then created the one higher than the higher being....on and on until we come up with an infinite number of creator. So this logic is both highly illogical and unbelievable – just like 'organic' evolution/abiogenesis.

So the ONLY LOGICAL and obvious answer is

He always existed. He always was.



In fact the Bible speaks of him as being ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’ He was the great supreme cause. Thus He was the 'always-existing first cause.’

Does this seem hard to comprehend? For simple minded folks like me it's not but for those who are geared towards the 'evolution theory' this truth it's foolishness (1Co 1:21)

Now, is it scientific? Of course! Proof? There's so many - see the examples I’ve already provided (E=mc2/dark energy/dark matter/infinity) for starters.

But lets assume for the sake of 'evolution' that there’s NO “always-existing first cause”, no Creator, what is the alternative? What’s your answer?

To me, the answer would have to be (as I've already said before), Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Do you agree with this logic? What say you?

Hopefully you have one that is based on facts, because (so far) most of the answers / explanations that I've read and seen are based on either improbable cause (abiogenesis), unproven theories (darwin evolution, etc), unproven hypothesis and guesses (Oparin, Szostak, et al) masquerading as scientific facts.

But bottom line is: if abiogenesis/evolution or any other evolutionary theory is the 'cause' of life, then where would the 'first thing' to exist come from? Again, could it exist from nothing? Could it exist by accident? Not even needing a cause, to bring it about?

What say you?

Remember this also, according to scientists and mathematicians, they say that anything with a probability of 1x10^50 is deemed impossible to occur. And according to experiments, life can't form from non-life (Louie Pasture, et al).

Interestingly, a growing number scientist themselves had acknowledge this fact.

To quote Astronomer Robert Jastrow (again): “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Here’s another

Professor J. D. Bernal (a comment on the book The Origin Of Life):

“By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.”
He added:

“Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.”


And the picture has not improved ever since.

Any idea of the significance of the professor’s statement above?

Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. To me it’s like saying:
‘Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.’

Or (according to some posters here)

‘Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But chemically arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose chemically.

Question: are you comfortable with such logic (or illogic)? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of ‘bending’ of the facts? Only if one DESIRES to believe such an illogical reasoning that one can be convince of such unscientific teaching.

Happily, there are knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life. Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What facts and what conclusion?

Notice this interview in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences:


“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”

What’s the obvious conclusion one can arrived at?

To me, the more you learn about the wonders of life, the more logical it is to agree with that: The origin of life requires an intelligent source.

cont...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
...
But, what say you nophun? What’s your logic?

Again as already noted by millions of honest hearted persons, that life begets life – this simple fact and other facts supports and agree with the Biblical poet/writer who long ago said about Jehovah God:

“For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.

And that:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” –Gen 1:1

Speaking of heavens and earth, according to scientific findings – it is estimated the universe is around 14 Gyr old and the earth is around 4 Gyr – confirming a beginning (unless you disagree with these findings).

So again, without a creator, a first cause, a maker, can you tell me where would / did the very first matter / thing came from? What caused it to come about? Why did it come about?

But most important of all (which I believe) 'evolution' have no logical and satisfactory answer is the meaning and purpose of life. Simply put why are we here?

Let's delve again in the realm of improbability at the edge of myth and say that 'abiogenesis/evolution' did it. Can it explain logically and satisfactorily why we are here?

If abiogenesis/evolution is truly the source of life – that all life as we know it started as a simple organism in the evolutionary 'organic soup' billions and billions of years ago, would it be logical then to say that we humans are no different from the amoeba, from the plankton, from fish, from amphibians, from chimps, from a crabgrass? They are after all our brothers and sisters if abiogenesis/evolution is a fact of life. Do you agree?

If so what advantage do we have then (in the end) with say a bug?
If nothing, why is it painful then (and abnormal) for humans to lose a loved one in death while a lioness have no remorse eating her own cub? Did evolution somehow made a choice long ago that we should have this thing called conscience while a lion do not?

While it’s easy to ignore and disregard facts (like probabilities for one) when it contradicts evolution, disproving it is a different matter.
On the other hand it's also understandable when people disregard Creation because of unscientific religious teachings and un-biblical doctrines but at the same time it doesn't prove that life was not created by God.

Let me throw this one too:

The word ‘adapt/adaptive’ has somehow become synonymous to “evolution”. That is, whenever a creature (be it in the micro or macro world) adapts to its environment, it is labeled as “evolving” instead of adapting. For example, if a blind person develops a fine- tuned hearing ability that he is able to use echolocation to sort out his surroundings, will you say the man evolved or he adapted? Ditto Darwin’s finches.

Also...
Some believe that life was created by God but used 'evolution' to evolve man from an 'organic soup' then climbed up the 'evolution ladder' to evolve to the present stage.

This is a very convoluted theory imho, but sadly some in the religious community subscribed to this idea and led many to further confusion – fyi, in the bible, these religious leaders are compared to a 'whitewash grave' and are condemned as hypocrites.

Some also believe that life came to be by means of 'natural laws' as if it's an intelligent entity able to create life - Mother Nature to some.

Still others (growing in numbers) believed that life was created by Aliens (although alien to my way of thinking, imho this is the closest explanation next to an “always existing” Creator).

So what say you nophun? Apart from a Creator where did life came from?

And lastly before I forget any idea why were the ceremonial laws (Leviticus) given to the nation of Israel (alone) while they were trekking the wilderness – was it just a dumb or a fools command as portrayed in your vid or was there significance to it?


Ty,
edmc2



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So basically just because we don't have all the answers yet you decide that only a creator makes sense as an explanation??? Sure...that makes total sense


Hundreds of years ago people believed fire is an act of god...and they didn't understand a lot of other things, which is why they came up with a lot of crazy theories (flat earth, gods, etc.) to explain the complexity they couldn't understand (yet).

Fact is, we have ZERO proof for the existence of such a super-being, and piece by piece we can explain more and more things through natural explanations. And even IF there were such a thing as a god, given the sheer amount of diverting theories (Allah, Hindu gods, Christian gods in all his new/old testament versions, Thor, etc.), why on earth would he chose to be schizophrenic and come up with a ton of different rules for different people???? It makes no sense and certainly doesn't seem very "intelligent" to me. It's also not very intelligent as a whole given how incredibly inhospitable our universe and even our own planet is.

So basically, if there is such a thing as god, he seems to be a sadistic schizophrenic bigot with way too many rules that make no sense whatsoever in the 21st century.

By the way, life didn't just come "from nothing". Scientists were able to recreate the whole process in the lab last year.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by nophun


Interesting video there nophun, but lacks substance if your intention was to educate. If on the other hand your goal was to poke fun of Creation, funny but weak presentation imho. Why? Read on please.


Hello, edmc.
I agree the video I posted lacked substance. I did not post it to be educational. Lets go farther into your post and see if we can explain why I posted that video.




He always existed. He always was.


WTF ! I will need some proof of this, please .. Oh there is more.




In fact the Bible speaks of him as being ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’ He was the great supreme cause. Thus He was the 'always-existing first cause.’


No the bible is really not creditable on any level.
The bible is loaded with contradictions and just unbelievable bull#. I will leave it at that for now ... oh there is more.



Now, is it scientific? Of course! Proof? There's so many - see the examples I’ve already provided (E=mc2/dark energy/dark matter/infinity) for starters.


What ?


Okay you know what? Your post is TL,DR
I get the just of it.
Basically because you do not know, or even we (humans) don't understand something .. "God did it" ?

Gee wonder why I posted that video above.
Yes .. yes, I agree a complete lack of substance.

This is what I got from your full posting.

edmc^2 : IDK, must be #ing magic, yo!


[edit on 10-8-2010 by nophun]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wheredacheesego
 


Thanks for your post wheresdacheesego (I like your handle) but please bear with me as your post is rich and requires a good reply:



“Now Ed, I just recently read some of your posts supporting the creationist theory.. and I quickly got an account so I could reply. You were saying that evolution can't explain complex things like the origin of the universe or how black holes are made and so on. Your argument is that since man has no other explanation for how such complex things came to be, there must be a creator”



Correct, can’t explain logically and scientifically the origin of life without going into the realm of ‘unproven science’. Scientifically speaking, life can only come from life – a fact supported every experiment conducted and by very knowledgeable scientist from different backgrounds.

To prove my point, quoting just two of the many scientists out there involve in the field:


“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.


Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged:

“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.” -Cosmos1980 p. 29.


Unless you have something that contradicts what they said please let me know.

Next you said:

Many ancient civilizations looked at the world and didn't know how to explain many of the things that happened because they didn't understand how they worked. Things like the wind, volcanoes, earthquakes, the sun, the moon.. no one knew what made them. They idolized gods that controlled many of these things. But science eventually explained these things. Volcanoes and earthquakes are both effects of the earths plates shifting beneath us. We found that we orbit around the sun and that the moon shifts the tides and creates wind currents. We are still figuring out the universe. .


If only man paid a much closer attention to what the Bible said long ago about the stars, the universe, the earth and its contents. Then man can truly understand the source of life and its purpose.

Next you said:

Is it so hard to beleive that just by chance, we exist on this earth. There are very few planets in the whole universe that we know of that can support life. The conditions were just perfect and we eventually evolved over billions of years from an ancient single cell organism.


This is exactly my point about ‘evolution’: it’s illogical and based on desire.

Let's take a look again at your statement: “Is it so hard to beleive that just by chance, we exist on this earth.” Yet this is what’s in the school textbooks. They tried to prove over and over again (unsuccessfully) – it’s been taught in schools even at an early age then repeated and enlarge upon year after year. The facts are ignored and replaced by assumptions – unscientific ones imho.

Imho it is the DESIRE to find more evidence for this teaching that has also been a prime moving force in the highly expensive space explorations of nations.
Note this fact with regards to NASA’s, Apollo 11 flight. It was to be, according to planning chief, Wernher von Braun:


“nothing less than a step in human evolution comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the sea and established itself on land.”


And 'Science' magazine, in its special issue of January 30, 1970, said this:

“The search for carbon-containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution leading to the origin of life.”


Question: What was the reaction in the ‘evolution’ community when the rock samples were brought back to the earth then carefully analyzed for any traces of life?

Total disappointment! Even today you don’t hear much about it. Any idea why? I’ll let you figure that one out.

Still they push on farther, and at even greater expense. Why? Notice this article entitled “Future in Space—From Moon to Mars,” U.S. News & World Report announced: “One of the main goals of such an expedition is to search for evidence of life on the planet.”

But as you said: “There are very few planets in the whole universe that we know of that can support life”. Yet the search continues in spite of the mounting evidence that life can only come from life.

Here’s another of your statement: “The conditions were just perfect and we eventually evolved over billions of years from an ancient single cell organism.”

Without an outside influence, an intelligent entity, how could “The conditions were just perfect…” to form life and “eventually evolved over billions of years from an ancient single cell organism.”

Going back to my past argument on probability, what is the chance of getting the ‘perfect’ conditions to form life by chance?

Any idea?

If a simple pencil requires a maker why not the universe?

Next you said:


“My point is if there is a intellegant design to all of this..
Why are there diseases?
Why are there natural disasters?
Why is there not more evidence of God, why are we supposed to beleive people that lived 2000 years ago that he exists?
I could go into specifics
I look forward to arguments”


I think I’ve answered this question already (but not on this thread because it’s a different topic) but since you asked the question here’s my reply (please bear with me as this is a little bit long – a short reply would not do justice).

Let start with an illustration:

If one of your family members accused you in front of your family, your neighbors, and friends and in front of a judge and jury of being an unfit parent to your children, what would you do? How would you respond?

cont...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Would you:

a)Hire a good defense lawyer who will show proofs beyond reasonable doubt of your innocence, goodness and faithfulness to the family and then confirm it by good reputable witnesses (like your – other- kids/wife/relatives/friends). Then disprove the accusation by showing the facts that your accuser has something against you, the type of person he is and his motive behind the accusation.

Or

b)Put the accuser to death?

Any sane person who is interested in the truth and nothing but the truth to clear up any misunderstanding and clear his name will choose - a). Don’t you agree?

Now this process will require time, effort and sacrifice. All the facts will need to be gathered and presented in a timely manner and all witnesses interviewed then a verdict is pronounced. The evidence must be solidly based on facts and truth in order to survive any counter arguments. Correct?

In like manner, this case is similar to what was done to God. He was accused by not one but by three members of his family.

Who were the accusers?

A perfect righteous angel – who later became wicked and came to be known as Satan (greek: satanas – resister) and Devil (Diabolos - slanderer).
Adam and Eve – the first couple then extending it to the present.

Summary of the accusations:

1)God is an unfit parent (father) not deserving any obedience and respect.

2)He has no right to govern or rule mankind. In short his sovereignty was put into question.

3)That mankind can live on their own without any help, guidance or assistance from their creator.

4)As a rightful father he does not have the right to decide what is right and wrong for his children.

5)Being a Creator, he was accused of being a liar (saying that man will die if they disobey his loving command).

6)That He is an unloving, selfish God, preventing his children from deciding on their own what is right and what is wrong – the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

7)He was accused of hiding the truth from them – the tree of life.
8)Cruel by giving them a simple test of obedience.

9)That his creation will only serve / worship God because of the blessings they receive from him (take them away says the accuser, man will abandon God). In other words man will only serve God due to selfish reasons.

10)Man under abundance or hardship or test will abandon his Creator. In short man can’t be trusted.

(Source: Genesis 5:1-5, Book of Job)

So to prove their claim, God did not destroy them but allowed time to take place. Besides, destroying the rebels would not answer the questions for good but will only leave doubts to all of Gods creations, that is, God’s rightfulness to rule mankind. So time was allowed for man to form his own way of governing (himself), to prove that his rulership is better than his maker. Thus sufficient time was allowed for man to create different types of governments and kingdoms. Advance his way of thinking – be it evolution, science, technology, psychology, philosophy, etc. At the same man was also allowed to form and choose his way of worship – be it atheism, theism, animism, satanism, Gaia, etc. And most of all to decide on his own what is right and what is wrong. In short, time was given to truly prove that MAN can successfully ‘guide his own steps’ apart from his creator.

--- Wheresdacheesego, MrXYZ, et al:

(This is the fundamental reason why man’s government/rule exist with its differing religious organs and confusing beliefs/teachings/doctrines/philosophies and why God –for the moment- can’t intervene in man's affairs.)



By allowing the three rebels to go on with their challenge, he gave them the opportunity to prove once and for all that God is not needed. In a direct or indirect way, claim that God is dead or does not exist. This also allowed opportunity for the meek ones to show their appreciation to God willingly.

Sadly, by agreeing with this plot – Adam and Eve (mankind) from that point in time suffered imperfection and allowed themselves be guided by sinful tendencies and be ruled by this wicked angel. (Rom 5:12)
Sadly also, a portion of the angels sided with them too – they later came to be known as demons.

Thus the bible aptly identifies Satan as the “ruler of the demons” -- Matt 12:22-27

And by default Satan also came to be known as “the ruler of this world” -- Eph 6:11,12, John 12:31 – (remember Satan offering the world to Jesus? He was able to do it because he is the actual ruler).

Thus the great controversy and challenge to God’s rightful rule was put in motion. Thousands of years passed – where are we now with the challenged?

wheresdacheesego - do you think MAN has finally proven that his claims are true?
What about the great opposer and slanderer Satan the devil, was his challenge and accusations true?

Can you name a human government from time immemorial that successfully ruled man for his betterment and was/is able to solve any or all of the problems that continually plagued him?

What about, independence, did it bring enlightenment and true freedom to man?

The evidence has now been gathered, analyzed, dissected and looked at and the final verdict has been rendered – the answer to the challenge is a resounding NO.

Consider these evidences:
The situation now on earth is very dire and perilous. Man’s government has failed miserably. Why even the basic needs of the people can’t be meet satisfactorily. What about the diseases (that you’ve mentioned), hunger, violence, wars – genocide, concentration camps, man’s inhumanity to man, included in this are the religious bloodsheds in the name of their god. Is there more happiness than sadness?
Think also of the breakup of families, breakup of societies amidst technological advances. Why we can even send men to the moon, yet on earth nations are at their throats. Governments spend billions of dollars developing powerful weapons of mass destruction, yet millions are left starving. Think of the good will this do if all the nations agree to devote their great talents and wealth helping the poor. DO you think in one year poverty can be eradicated? Think of the advances in science and medicine, yet we are faced with an ever threatening viruses and diseases. We can split the atom yet we are powerless in putting it back – how many nukes do you think the nations have?

cont...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
...
Then there’s the ever growing population and ever increasing pollution and the often talked about global warming (jury still out). What about terrorism and many more sad facts of life confronting us.


Now, how long do you think man has before he destroys himself? What about the catastrophic events (man-made/natural) in which man is powerless, do you think we need God’s help now to stop ALL of these events? Or will we keep repeating the lies that we don’t need him or that he does not exist, that we are products of an accident, chance, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, AotG? – Thus no real purpose.

Sadly though, the religious leaders who claim to be servants of God are also responsible for spreading the lies. They alienated (and continue to alienate) many more because of unbiblical teachings such the ‘immortal soul’ doctrine, that God will take away good people to heaven while he will roast the sinners in a fiery place of torment called “hellfire”. They bless young men in the name of God to kill their fellowman. They equate country with God – to serve country is to serve God, on and on and on. They are also busy meddling in politics – pitting God’s laws against man’s laws (sometimes by force), influencing politicians to adopt their teachings (Creationism/ID). No wonder, the world is in such a mess and God is being wrongly blamed for all of the world’s troubles and problems. Some if not many say that if God exist, then why he doesn’t put a stop to all of this madness. Yet, when the Bible is mentioned, many scoff at the idea that it is the word of God. True Christians are ridiculed as weak minded people and thought of as against science. The Bible’s messages are oftentimes ridiculed and laugh at by supposedly ‘smart men’.


On the other hand millions upon millions (starting from Abel to the present) have proven Satan to be a liar. They proved without a doubt that they will serve God because they want to not because of the things they receive. Many millions died faithfully serving God inspite of all the hardships and difficult circumstances they encountered. (Heb 11,12)


Yet in spite of all the maltreatments and false accusations, Jehovah God is patient and does not force anyone but wants us to approach him willingly. Why he even sent forth his beloved son to die instead of us (John 3:16), this to show his unquestionable love for his creation. He also provided a book the Bible to show us ‘The Way’ back to him.


As a further guaranty He promised this (very soon): Rev 21:1-4


“With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”


There’s more here: (Why God permit wickedness)





So wheresdacheesgo do you still think that God is responsible for man’s sad situation and plight? No, in fact he proposed a day to put an end to all of the madness and the rebellion brought in by the three rebels along with all those who follow their footsteps. When this happens it will then finally vindicate and sanctify his Holy name.


Thus He invites all humble and meek people to:


“Gather yourselves together, yes, do the gathering, O nation not paling in shame. Before [the] statute gives birth to [anything], [before the] day has passed by just like chaff, before there comes upon YOU people the burning anger of Jehovah, before there comes upon YOU the day of Jehovah’s anger, seek Jehovah, all YOU meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably YOU may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger.” Zephaniah 2:1-3


“And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.” (Joel 2:32 – see also John 17:3)


Like in Noah’s day, he is gathering people for survival before the world (system of things) is finally put out of its misery (Matt 24:37-40, Dan 2:44).


After that – true peace and security!


As a matter of fact, the heavens are now cleaned / cleared of the badness that at one time inhabited it.


Notice this very important event that took place:


“And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha•el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. – Rev 12:7-9.


With what result?


“On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.” – Rev 12:12

Yes ‘Woe’ to us for the Devil has come down with great anger and according to evidence, any idea when did this occur?

Good news is, we are now living deep in the ‘last days’ of this system of things. Soon God’s will - will be done on earth as it is (already done) in the heaven – the removal of badness. – Matt 24:3-14, 6:9, Dan 2:44

Question is – will you be among the survivors? If you continue to believe in evolution, then the outcome will be certain(ly) sad.

Note: ‘Probably’ means that it will depend on the person remaining loyal to God.

Now that you have and know this information, what will you do with it?

What say you? Please let me know if you need further explanation.

Ty,
edmc2



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by wheredacheesego
 



Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged:

“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.” -Cosmos1980 p. 29.


Okay, Sagan is a legend and I will not let you lie about him.

I just happen to have Cosmos by Carl Sagan . Lets take a look at what he Really had to say.


Found it !


The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer;


but wait ... there is more




The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).


edmc^2 your whole post seems to be bull# quote mining. You have lost the little creditability you started out with. If I decide to read the rest of your post my reply will not be so kind.

If you actual read Cosmos and came to the conclusion Sagan was talking against evolution you are semi-retarded , If you just visted some random creationist website and took a quote without checking the source we should not give you the time of day.





[edit on 10-8-2010 by nophun]




top topics



 
26
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join