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 edmc^2
reply to post by OzWeatherman
Again, your comparisons are completely redundant. A pencil (an inanimate object) vs a complex system of gases and matter....there's nothing to compare, they are two different things....your test is yet another BS test creationists use to reassure themselves that a creator exists.
So OZ are you saying that a simpe pencil requires a maker while the super complex universe with all of its stars and galaxies does not require a maker? Just happen to be?
Hmmm, highly illogic and unscientific don't you think?
Originally posted by Firepac
I'm also extremely puzzled why edmc^2 would use an avatar of Einstein considering Einstein was an EVOLUTIONIST....
As for science, like what I said before, science or for that matter, scientific achievement is not at issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics have ushered in the computer age, which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats, even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from the micro to the macro.
The issue is when illogical (unscientific) reasoning or scientific discipline becomes a matter of “faith”, then just like religion or creationism#, without a solid foundation it becomes a form of fanaticism and 'blind faith'.
#Scientific Creationism (i.e. Little Rock trial).
Take for example:
1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.
Evidence shows the earth is about 4B years old.
2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.
According to geologists, they have classified the rocks that make up our globe into three basic categories: (1) igneous; (2) sedimentary and (3) metamorphic
Interestingly, I'm not sure if you noticed it or even aware of it, the word ‘chance’ has been personified as if we were talking about a “causal agent, - an entity”.
This what biophysicist Donald M. MacKay noted when he said that “chance” somehow made a transformation into
“...an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”
Do you think there's truth on what he said?
Here's another similar observation from Robert C. Sproul, he points out:
“By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”
Most notable of all, Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, used this chance-equals-cause line of reasoning.
Notice what he said:
“Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,”
. He further wrote:
“Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance.”
Here's the kicker, ‘BY chance.’ Monod does what many others do—he makes or elevates 'chance' to a creative principle. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.
In fact, dictionaries show that “chance” is “the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings.” 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?
In other words: Abiogenesis/Evolution = Chance = Causal Agent
On the other hand:
Creation = Creator (an Intelligent Entity)
Which one makes sense? To me creation makes sense.
(btw, majority of the people I've quoted are believers of evolution)
Originally posted by edmc^2
As for Einstien being an 'evolutionist' - i dunno but here's a riddle for you:
WHEN an American rabbi once asked Einstein, “Do you believe in God?” he replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by edmc^2
OP, an absolute beautifully written 1st post...
Logical and convicting!!!!
A deadly combination for the skeptic...
OT's sorry for being late to the game...
Human Body: Does not require a Designer.
Robot Body: Does require a Designer.
Because the Human Body is the product of reproduction, which even stupid people can do...
And the Robot requires someone who is intelligent to design, build, and program it.
Therefore... I think your point is irrelevant. – iamcamouflage
“We can observe only for so long, the only way to prove a theory is through testing it out in a real world scenario under the same exact conditions and after testing it multiple times, only then can you say your theory is correct.”
“So you are saying that the super complex universe needs a maker, but the EVEN MORE complex maker does not require a maker?
“wouldnt your creator need a creator aswell?
How is yours somehow magical and always existing?
Abiogenisis is the only logical explination as to the origination of life in the universe... regardless in lack of the scientific understandings we have now. – Wertdagf”
“Your comparisons are like comparing apples to oranges. Robots were made by man, the universe is massive and quite alot more complex then a robot. Any comparison you gave, the former was always much more complex.” – Espyderman
“Alien and/or God the whole point of your OP is flawed. If something that "looks designed needs a designer", that designer needs a designer. Saying "He always existed. He always was" is doing nothing but waste time. Carl Sagan once said "If we say "God" was always here, why not say the universe was always here? – nophun"
“So if god doesnt need a creator and always existed, why couldnt the universe(or multiples) have always existed.
If god is infinite, why cant the universe(s) be infinite?“-- iamcamouflage
Originally posted by iamcamouflage
If god is infinite, why cant the universe(s) be infinite?
A Robot: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A CPU: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A camera: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A house: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A simple pencil: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A flint arrow tip: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
You cant escape the logic of your god needing a creator..... even if yoru god is some sort of ambeint pattern it still needs the foudation of its replication set by some initial unknown force.
Yet again Edmc falls back on the only logic he understands... deffering to his bible, a book so full of holes.