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 "I've had it with madness" Challenge!

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well, in a debate thread the only people posting would be you, me, and whoever is moderating the debate (one of the moderators, of course).

Now, if you want to take me on, what would you like the title of the debate to be? Typically a debate will have a statement which one of us is for and the other is against. An example would be: "Resolved: The best material for building a wolf-proof house is brick"

So, what topic shall we debate?




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Um...on ATS a star is just a way of letting people know you enjoy their posts. It makes them smile a bit when they get one or two.

In real life a star is a self-sustaining, naturally arising fusion reaction, typically starting out with the fusion of hydrogen into helium.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I'd say your post about sums it up.

In essence Creationists must rely on straw-man arguments against Evolution because there's no evidence supporting magical creation.

This part of your post was my favorite:



Well where's the missing link between sharks and butterflies? If evolution was real you'd have fossils of sharks with pretty wings and antenae to show me.


While this example seems comical it is exactly the sort of thing I used to say back when I was an Old Earth Creationist (I was a teenager, I didn't know any better).

And everyone remembers Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and the Crocoduck.

I hope someone takes up the Madness Challenge but I have my doubts anyone will.

edit on 17-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Kailassa
 

I'd say your post about sums it up.

Thanks. I've had plenty of examples online to study.



In essence Creationists must rely on straw-man arguments against Evolution because there's no evidence supporting magical creation.

I've racked my brains to find arguments to support a real debate against evolution just because debating is fun, but sadly can't find any.


This part of your post was my favorite:

Well where's the missing link between sharks and butterflies? If evolution was real you'd have fossils of sharks with pretty wings and antenae to show me.

While this example seems comical it is exactly the sort of thing I used to say back when I was an Old Earth Creationist (I was a teenager, I didn't know any better).
And everyone remembers Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and the Crocoduck.

I couldn't believe they were serious when I first heard that kind of argument. - Like that guy with the "created" banana, I thought he was making fun of creationists.

As a teenager, despite being brought up religious, I was not aware anyone took the creation story literally.
I don't know if there were any creationists in Australia in the 60s. But gradually we've imported American style religions, and a convicted paedophile has started up the horribly successful brain-petrifying Hillsong church, loved by right-wing politicians, which also pushes a literal interpretation of the bible.


I hope someone takes up the Madness Challenge but I have my doubts anyone will.

They believe David killed an armored giant with a slingshot. They believe god can keep a believer safe even within a fiery furnace. But they apparently don't believe god can help them defeat Madness by defending god's word.







edit on 17/12/10 by Kailassa because: Keyboards . . . it's a keyboard conspiracy . . . they're surrepticiously sabotaging my spelling.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 





But they apparently don't believe god can help them defeat Madness by defending god's word.


Nah, I am just following Jesus advise in this area...

Matthew 7:6

Do not give that which is holy (the sacred thing) to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before hogs, lest they trample upon them with their feet and turn and tear you in pieces.


I love how there is a scripture for everything if you know the bible well enough




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





I love how there is a scripture for everything if you know the bible well enough


Me too. My favorites are the 21st Chapter of Exodus and Deuteronomy 22 but the chances of either being mentioned in Sunday School is essentially zero.


7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.


These are the sorts of chapters where reading them in context actually makes it WORSE so here's the rest of the chapter: Exodus 21



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa
 


But they apparently don't believe god can help them defeat Madness by defending god's word.

Nah, I am just following Jesus advise in this area...
Matthew 7:6

Do not give that which is holy (the sacred thing) to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before hogs, lest they trample upon them with their feet and turn and tear you in pieces.

I love how there is a scripture for everything if you know the bible well enough

How many arguments did you lose, Blue_Jay, before you learnt this piece of scripture?

Seriously, you may be a better Christian than Madness, because he keeps ignoring the words of Christ and casting his pearls before swine. Or Jesus may say on that day that he knows you not, but them's the breaks.




edit on 18/12/10 by Kailassa because: formatting



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Have you had it up to here with madnessinmysoul's 'evolutionist' ramblings?


Feel like stopping his 'evolutionist' lies?

Why not try taking him down?

I'm here to announce the "I've had it with madness" challenge, whereby you can challenge me to a debate. We'll have a debate on more or less any topic you want in whatever format is suitable for the debate forum.

Any takers?


OK – here's a very simple challenge to you.

Since evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life.

I posit to you that IT can't also satisfactorily answer the very basic question about life. That is: What is the ultimate meaning of life?

So what say you madness? As a champion of evolution theory, can 'evolution' answer this simple question satisfactorily (for all)?

Let's put this in human terms, please explain the true meaning of life to a poor uneducated “goat herder” who've been toiling all his life to support and feed his family or to a mother who lost her only child to death.

I'm interested in your answer.

((Related questions if you're still up to it:

If life is a product of evolution – then it must also follow that suffering, sickness and death are it's byproduct (inherit) - Yes?

If no, where did they came from and why?

What about the evil (hitler) in man – is it a product of evolution too - yes/no - WHY?

If you say that evolution is responsible for current form/state of man – then is it also correct to say, life according to evolution theory will eventually ceased to exist? No, please explain?))

Btw, Creation on the other hand already answered these questions (and many more) long time ago. Might I add, even true sciences do not conflict with what it said (when it touches it's realm, that is).

Ciao,
edmc2

edit on 18-12-2010 by edmc^2 because: added missing ? mark



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Yep, they covered pretty much every contingency for when they're challenged by reality. The Bible is good at covering its own back, but not good at supporting any of its own claims.

As others have pointed out, it also covers a whole host of other ignorant things like slavery or how to best wash yourself if you wet the bed. Or how a female child leaves a mother more impure than a male child.

reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
OK – here's a very simple challenge to you.

Since evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life.

I posit to you that IT can't also satisfactorily answer the very basic question about life. That is: What is the ultimate meaning of life?

So what say you madness? As a champion of evolution theory, can 'evolution' answer this simple question satisfactorily (for all)?


That's an irrelevant question. It doesn't have an answer to that philosophical question. It answers only one question: "Why is there such an incredible amount of variety in life?" and claims to answer nothing further.



Let's put this in human terms, please explain the true meaning of life to a poor uneducated “goat herder” who've been toiling all his life to support and feed his family or to a mother who lost her only child to death.


This isn't really a question for evolution. As far as science is concerned it's not a question either. It's just a philosophical issue.



I'm interested in your answer.

((Related questions if you're still up to it:

If life is a product of evolution – then it must also follow that suffering, sickness and death are it's byproduct (inherit) - Yes?

If no, where did they came from and why?


Suffering is something found throughout the natural world, sickness is a product of other lifeforms invading our body as well as our natural imperfections, and death is simply a product of the imperfection of biology.



What about the evil (hitler) in man – is it a product of evolution too - yes/no - WHY?


Evil isn't something that's selected for in evolution. It's not a product. It's not a concern of the theory. Again, it's about biodiversity. If you give me a relevant question relating to biodiversity, i'll answer.



If you say that evolution is responsible for current form/state of man – then is it also correct to say, life according to evolution theory will eventually ceased to exist? No, please explain?))


No...wait, what's the question there?
I mean, human life in its current form will eventually change. Of course it will. Evolution is just about change.



Btw, Creation on the other hand already answered these questions (and many more) long time ago. Might I add, even true sciences do not conflict with what it said (when it touches it's realm, that is).


How about I posit the idea for the debate?

"Creationism is a proper, scientific answer to all questions it claims to answer"

Do you think you could prove this statement? I'd be up for debating that.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



“Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Have you had it up to here with madnessinmysoul's 'evolutionist' ramblings?

Feel like stopping his 'evolutionist' lies?

Why not try taking him down?

I'm here to announce the "I've had it with madness" challenge, whereby you can challenge me to a debate. We'll have a debate on more or less any topic you want in whatever format is suitable for the debate forum.

Any takers?”




For a moment there I thought you were so confident in your platform to debate “any topic you want in whatever format is suitable for the debate forum.”

But just as I suspected, like what I said:

1) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life. Check.
2) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the meaning of life. Check.

Thus, I can understand why you said:


That's an irrelevant question. It doesn't have an answer to that philosophical question....


OK – let's nick this down further to make it much more simpler and make it in your view “relevant”.

If 'evolution' is such an 'intelligent' (or blind) process that it's able to explain 'scientifically' how 'life evolve' from simple form to higher form in such a “biodiversity”. Then please explain “scientifically” of course why disease, sickness and death are present? Why 'evolution' if it's a fact (as some are fond of saying) is not able to remove/filter out these detrimental factors of life while evolving? Will it be able to in the future? Think of the hope that you can give to those who inherited cancer cells from their parents. Do you think 'evolution' will be able to elimenate these painful facts of life soon - that is, before man destroys himself from a nuclear explosion/reaction or from the forces of nature?

As for these statement:


How about I posit the idea for the debate?

"Creationism is a proper, scientific answer to all questions it claims to answer"

Do you think you could prove this statement? I'd be up for debating that.


OK – I posit to you this scientific fact and logical reasoning:

Back to the origin of life:

Do you agree that:

LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE?

That is, life begets life. That life can't come from a non-living thing.

So Creation (a Creator) “is a proper, scientific answer to all questions it claims to answer”

Now any idea who is the SOURCE of life?

What does 'evolution theory' say about this?

Ciao,
edmc2


edit on 18-12-2010 by edmc^2 because: added one more Q and ?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
For a moment there I thought you were so confident in your platform to debate “any topic you want in whatever format is suitable for the debate forum.”


...any topic within the realm of evolution. I'm not going to debate if a Mars bar is superior to a Milky Way because I honestly don't care and it's irrelevant.



But just as I suspected, like what I said:

1) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life. Check.


Alright, I'm going to repeat this yet again, as I've already told you this many, many times. Evolution is a scientific theory relating to biodiversity. There is a separate theory in science relating to the origin of life, it is called abiogenesis, but it is a relatively new field.



2) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the meaning of life. Check.


As I stated before: No scientific theory has an answer to this claim. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Now, evolution not answering either of these questions doesn't change its validity.



Thus, I can understand why you said:


That's an irrelevant question. It doesn't have an answer to that philosophical question....


OK – let's nick this down further to make it much more simpler and make it in your view “relevant”.


...are you going to require circuit theory to answer the meaning of life? Are you going to require germ theory to explain the origin of life?

Please, ask me questions that relate to the topic at hand.



If 'evolution' is such an 'intelligent' (or blind) process that it's able to explain 'scientifically' how 'life evolve' from simple form to higher form in such a “biodiversity”. Then please explain “scientifically” of course why disease, sickness and death are present?


Ok, this is going to require a lot of typing, but I'll answer it.

Disease and sickness, at least in most instances, is due to microorganisms that invade living things. These organisms are themselves products of and subject to evolution, so they evolve alongside the defenses of the host bodies they infect. It's a continual arms race and the complete success of one side would lead to the eradication of the other. With regard to the sicknesses not caused by disease, like cancer, this is due to the imperfection of biological life. Genetic code doesn't always copy perfectly, that's why things evolve in the first place.

Death is a more complicated issue. With regards to death from external causes like disease, injury, oxygen deprivation, etc the issue is that the necessary minimum amount of a certain system required for the body to function has not been met for enough time for the entire thing to finally die. With regard to ageing it has to deal with how the cells in the body reproduce. They don't copy themselves perfectly after between 20 and 35 years, so the body starts to go into a small decline. Of course, with modern science we're finding ways around this.



Why 'evolution' if it's a fact (as some are fond of saying) is not able to remove/filter out these detrimental factors of life while evolving?


Because it's an unguided process. Evolution works towards survival, not perfection. If the organism survives and passes on its DNA then the DNA will continue. But there's nothing in evolution that requires the organism to become perfect.

Of course, this is all a typical straw man argument against evolution.



Will it be able to in the future?


No, it won't. Of course, human intervention will be able to handle those things.



Think of the hope that you can give to those who have inherited cancer cells from their parents.


Um...we give that hope with medicine, not evolution.



Do you think 'evolution' will be able to elimenate these painful facts of life soon - that is, before man destroys himself from a nuclear explosion/reaction or from the forces of nature?


No, evolution won't. The medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory, on the other hand, will.



As for these statement:


How about I posit the idea for the debate?

"Creationism is a proper, scientific answer to all questions it claims to answer"

Do you think you could prove this statement? I'd be up for debating that.


OK – I posit to you this scientific fact and logical reasoning:


...um...you're not answering my question. Would you like to debate that topic.



Back to the origin of life:

Do you agree that:

LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE?

That is, life begets life. That life can't come from a non-living thing.


Life does beget life. But we do know that complex, self-replicating organic molecules can arise naturally and that these molecules can in term give rise to life. So life can come from the non-living.



So Creation (a Creator) “is a proper, scientific answer to all questions it claims to answer”


um...so you'd like to debate the topic in the forum? You don't seem to have phrased things correctly.



Now any idea who is the SOURCE of life?


Life isn't really a 'thing', it's a description of action. So it has no source.



What does 'evolution theory' say about this?


Nothing, as it doesn't relate to biodiversity.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Since evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life.


:bnghd:

Evolution requires no answer to the origin of life. Evolution is about genetic variation and the source of bio-diversity. The origin of life, bio-genesis, is an entirely different field of study.



What is the ultimate meaning of life?


A fun philosophical question but one that Evolution has no obligation to answer.

In my opinion the biological meaning of life is reproduction, that much seems obvious. Any other meaning is subjective.



What about the evil (hitler) in man – is it a product of evolution too - yes/no - WHY?


Evil is a word we use to describe behaviors that we have deemed very harmful to others. The potential for these behaviors comes from the amount of free choice we have, choice most likely being a product of our intelligence.



Btw, Creation on the other hand already answered these questions (and many more) long time ago.


No it doesn't.

Creation certainly doesn't answer the meaning of life. You can ask a dozen Creationists what the meaning of life is and chances are they will give different answers:

Worshiping God
Becoming more like Christ
Preaching the Word
Be fruitful and multiply (something Evolution and Creation might have in common)
Etc
etc
etc



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
My take on Evolution vs. Creation,

I believe in a Creator force/being/energy, and attempting to put myself in it's shoes I have to think. If I created all these different Universes, Dimensions, Realities It's no way possible I could manage them all without a little help or "script-running".

I see it like this, Evolution & Creationism are yin & yang. I think the Creator, created life and did it at a very basic and minimum way, but encoded these physical/biological vessels and their environments with the ability to evolve to each other at rates/times that caused the less amount of drama or problems possible, How could the creator deal only with humans when it's evident now more than ever that life does not only reside on our planet? Alot of sci-fi writers and followers feel as though this universe is a huge simulation or computer program, and to some extent it does seem that way, and using Evolution as a "Script" would make perfect and reasonable sense to a "User" attempting to maintain a very extensive and large "database" of "information" and "programs"



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
The challenge is not a reasonable one.

To enter into a debate in which one side is based on science while the other based in faith is a losing proposition in this age. My faith in God is complete though presenting a compelling argument based in scientific proof is impossible.

Why don't people understand that?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 


Creationists don't understand it because they are lied to and told their beliefs are actually the scientifically sound ones.

I used to be a Creationist, all the websites and literature are supremely arrogant in their assertion that they possess the truth and that scientists are all lying, fabricating evidence, and ignoring the obvious (that "God dun it").



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 


But this isn't an argument about any deity or theistic claim, this is an argument about evolution. Evolution is something that can be accepted by those of both theistic and atheistic persuasions.

When I was a theist I had no problem with evolution and none of my theistic friends have a problem with evolution (well, one used to until he did some study on it for himself).

Now, you can believe that a deity created the first life, put the universe into motion, etc and none of that would conflict with evolution. In fact, even if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old and all species were created as is evolution is factual. Evolution isn't a historical claim, it's a claim of change over generations. We just happen to be able to apply it historically.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Ok for a start its my understanding that 'creationists' not only believe in a 'God' that created man but also 'peace, understanding and love' I'm not seeing any of that here from the 'creationists' all I'm seeing is 'I'm right! PROVE me wrong, I'm right, blah blah blah'

From a biblical point of view the old and new testaments present and entirely different 'God' one is a war god the other is a loving god.

From a humanistic point of view how would a 'loving God' allow all the suffering of humanity and the animal kingdom that has taken place? I can't even watch animal rescue society adverts on TV let alone sit back and watch all the suffering over millennia... No-one can claim that this is justified or that a salvation or paradise earth or heaven is worth children in pain, innocents in agonies....

I don't claim that we have all the answers right now, just because this time is when I live doesn't mean we have all the clues or the answers, but there isn't a loving god, there are billions of dead people that can testify to this.

Why do you want to 'debate'/argue the issue? If you truly believed in a loving god you wouldn't feel the need to be here on forums challenging people, a challenge is a form of war, a fight or a battle there is no place for challenges in religion.

Neither Creationists nor evolutionists can present defining evidence at the present time, both are THEORIES.


edit on 18-12-2010 by Versa because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2010 by Versa because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2010 by Versa because: spelling



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 





My faith in God is complete though presenting a compelling argument based in scientific proof is impossible.


I starred your post because you have succinctly summed up this entire matter, however I have done enough research on this topic that for me I have proof from my personal perspective, it isn't even a matter of faith anymore for me. It is logic, based on what we know, such as intelligent life begets intelligent life.
Complex entities don't just happen, biological beings are infinitely more complex than non-living structures that are extremely complex.
If I said a F-22 fighter plane evolved over millions of years with out a designer, what would you say?
"Impossible"
So I say the same thing about a human, and it's complex DNA/RNA and cells each with different functions did not just happen.
How does a multi-celled being living in the ocean, within it's structure of it's cells/DNA/RNA decide they suddenly need sex organs and vision to continue to function, when they didn't have them before or even need them? Let theoretical evolution answer that one.

edit on 19-12-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



1) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life. Check.
2) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the meaning of life. Check.


Now, evolution not answering either of these questions doesn't change its validity.


Of course it does, because the “evolution theory” can only occur/happen unless it has a foundation. Be it “abiogenesis” or whatever theory you use to support it. If the foundation is weak or even non-existent then the “evolution theory” has NO validity.


Alright, I'm going to repeat this yet again, as I've already told you this many, many times. Evolution is a scientific theory relating to biodiversity. There is a separate theory in science relating to the origin of life, it is called abiogenesis, but it is a relatively new field.


Of course – the much revered philosophy of “Spontaneous Generation Theory” to the rescue.

Do you subscribe to this THEORY too?

I read and studied this theory a while back – and it is indeed a pseudo-science, a fanciful philosophy based on unscientific analysis and unscientific thinking.

What about these theories – which one do you think fit the puzzle best?

>The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis

But I’d like to hear your take on 'abiogeneses'– explain please how life came to be through 'abiogeneses'? Just to confirm my suspicion.


Next I said:


If 'evolution' is such an 'intelligent' (or blind) process that it's able to explain 'scientifically' how 'life evolve' from simple form to higher form in such a “biodiversity”. Then please explain “scientifically” of course why disease, sickness and death are present?


your remark:


Ok, this is going to require a lot of typing, but I'll answer it.

Disease and sickness, at least in most instances, is due to microorganisms that invade living things. These organisms are themselves products of and subject to evolution, so they evolve alongside the defenses of the host bodies they infect. It's a continual arms race and the complete success of one side would lead to the eradication of the other. With regard to the sicknesses not caused by disease, like cancer, this is due to the imperfection of biological life. Genetic code doesn't always copy perfectly, that's why things evolve in the first place.


So my take, if the 'unguided evolution process' is such a powerful cause/force that a 'simple organism' is able to 'evolve' into a higher life form like present day humans – then why is it NOT able to eradicate these parasites? Unless you're saying that it is part of the plan all along – you know “arms race”- the fittest will survive? Yes/No?

And who do you think is winning this “arms race” of yours, who will be eradicated if things continue the way they are?

Notice just a sampling:


Cancer on the Rise

Published: December 22, 2008

There will be about 20 million new cases of cancer a year by 2030, up from 12 million a year today, according to a report published this month by the World Health Organization. Worldwide, the most common cancers are lung, breast and colorectal, but the incidence of these and other cancers, and the number of deaths they cause, vary greatly by region. More than half of cancer cases and 60 percent of the deaths occur in poor countries. “China and India are going to dominate with 25 percent of the world’s population,” said Dr. Peter Boyle, a co-editor of the report and the director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. “What happens there is going to drive the numbers.”


www.nytimes.com...

Here are just a few list of viruses that plague mankind.

Lassa,
Rift Valley,
Oropouche, Rocio,
Q. Guanarito, VEE, monkeypox,
Chikungunya, Mokola, Duvenhage, LeDantec,
the Kyasanur Forest brain virus, the Semliki Forest agent,
Crimean-Congo, O’nyongnyong,
Sindbis, Marburg, 
Ebola, add to the list AIDS virus.

Really, with these ever increasing threat from an ever stronger viruses, does man stand any chance? In another words – will human “evolution” win this “arms race” of yours?

If yes, then how could that be since according to your statement:

Genetic code doesn't always copy perfectly, that's why things evolve in the first place.


And since according to the laws of genetics, if the source gene is defective then it follows that whenever or whatever is copied from it will also contain the defective gene/DNA. Thus since ALL HUMANS are IMPERFECT (Romans 5:12) thus all that comes out of them MUST also be IMPERFECT. Correct? The more imperfect the parent gene the more imperfect the daughter gene will be, more susceptible to pathogens. Correct?

If this is the case (which it is) mankind then IS – devolving, becoming more imperfect – getting weaker and sicker. Correct? Unless you are saying that evolution is 'intelligent' able to filter out the bad genes?

But this couldn't be, because you said in a matter of FACT way: EVOLUTION is

“an unguided process”.


Any hope for the future according to evolution theory? Will man evolve to another species in the future in order to survive its ultimate demise? Evolve into what?

As for:


Death is a more complicated issue.


No it's not – to believers of creation it's an enemy that will someday be eradicated by a loving God. (Rev 21:1-3, John 3:16).

In fact the Creator of life already told us how and why old age, sickness and death occurred: here's the key - Rom 5: 12 (if you're interested)

Next:

With regards to death from external causes like disease, injury, oxygen deprivation, etc the issue is that the necessary minimum amount of a certain system required for the body to function has not been met for enough time for the entire thing to finally die.


So are saying then that these “external causes” of death are “necessary” in order for the “for the entire thing to finally die” so that the fittest will survive??



With regard to ageing it has to deal with how the cells in the body reproduce. They don't copy themselves perfectly after between 20 and 35 years, so the body starts to go into a small decline.


Which leads me to this simple Q: what caused the telomeres to die off/fail to reproduce once it becomes an adult? Did 'evolution' somehow forgot to consider this? Or did 'evolution' intended it to be SO, in order to fulfill it's grand blind design/plan, that is, as you said:


Evolution works towards survival, not perfection


Thus a death of a person due to a virus infection is “evolution's”:


...works towards survival...
in other words “survival of the fittest ”not perfection” - is that what you mean? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If so, then what you're saying imho is that the death of millions or even billions of humans (since their evolution/conception) were necessary in order for evolution to move forward. Correct?

And on this imho 'evolution' do not care one bit:


Because it's an unguided process. Evolution works towards survival, not perfection. If the organism survives and passes on its DNA then the DNA will continue. But there's nothing in evolution that requires the organism to become perfect.


So an inferior gene begets an inferior gene – down the road, this gene will finally deteriorate to such a degree that the resulting organ is a mutant – unless you're saying otherwise.

Which brings me to this point. That is, “DEATH” is part of the 'human evolution'. Correct? If so, does this mean then that death is a normal part of life? If so evolution's end game then is imperfection and finally death? Correct? Or maybe an endless devolution/evolution, an ongoing cycle of life and death – just like what the Hindu's believe – reincarnation.

If this is true, then a pity for those who believe in it (evolution that is), (specially for those who abandoned Creation).

Creation's goal on the other hand is PERFECTION! Both in body and mind (Rom 8:20-21)! Should we not reach for that goal?

Of course, to proponents of evolution, it's an unattainable goal for

“Evolution works towards survival, not perfection”.


BTW:

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying for a while now.
That is: EVOLUTION is

“an unguided process”.
– in other words IT'S A BLIND PROCESS! It's more like a game of CHANCE – and CHANCE is the CAUSAL force.

Next I said:

Why 'evolution' if it's a fact (as some are fond of saying) is not able to remove/filter out these detrimental factors of life (I.e: disease, sickness and death) while evolving? Will it be able to in the future?


You said:


No, it won't. Of course, human intervention will be able to handle those things.


Please correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that “human intervention will be able to handle those things.” - meaning, man will eventually eliminate “those things” -i.e. disease, sickness and death?

I came to this conclusion because of what you said below:

Next – I said:

(Do you think 'evolution' will be able to eliminate these painful facts of life soon - that is, before man destroys himself from a nuclear explosion/reaction or from the forces of nature? )


your response to what I said above:


No, evolution won't. The medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory, on the other hand, will.


So Madness, since you stated that “evolution” will NOT be able to ELIMINATE these painful facts of life soon, what convinced you that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” is able to ELIMINATE these ever growing problems soon? What makes you believe that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” (not evolution) is able to ELIMINATE DESEASES, VIRUSES, and may I add to these, WARS, FAMINES, GREED, CORRUPTION and his own bad tendencies?

And most of all – what makes you believe that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” (not evolution) have SUCH power against NATURE – “able to handle” it's awesome forces?

Fact is, in the face of such destructive forces humans are powerless. Do you agree?

So, to sum it up, imho proponents of evolution PUT THEIR TRUST on MAN – on imperfect sinful man, on man's own words and works – evolution theory, that is!

This reminds me of a wise king who once said:

“Do not put YOUR trust in nobles,
Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.
His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish.” – Ps 146: 3, 4.


Is it wise then to trust ones own life to someone who can't even save himself from death?

Really, which “human” entity/government do you think has the power of “intervention” and “will be able to handle those things.”? Is it the US government? Russia, China or is it the UN? The scientific community who came up with this idea/theory? Of course God is out of the question since you don't believe he exist.

But really, are we like gods possessing super natural powers able to battle nature and able go against the Creator of Life? I must say, this is indeed MADNESS, if you believe it to be so!

But hey, prolly – evolution will get there someday – hopefully though before nature or man destroys himself of course.

Bottom line imho, the “EVOLUTION Theory” as (“an unguided process”)is based on MAN's own flawed, imperfect thinking. Thus having FAITH on it will only lead to a meaningless existence.

To believers of Creation – the Loving Creator has a wonderful plan for obedient and humble mankind in the future. After all he is the Creator of Life (Gen 1:1)!

Lastly,
“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.”—MATTHEW 5:3.

May those who are “conscious of their spiritual need” take heed as the end of the corrupt system of man nears it's end (Matt 24:14, Isa 2:4).




Ciao,
edmc2

another challenge:

Will your sacred 'evolution theory' be able to create/evolve a perfect system out of an imperfect system?




...Gotta go … later with the rest of your post...


btw, kinglizard you have a point there but FAITH does not and cannot rest on unfounded belief or on weak reason or else it becomes BLIND FAITH. On this IMHO evolution is based on blind unguided process - which I can truly say a 'blind faith' (on man's words and works).


edit on 19-12-2010 by edmc^2 because: cuasal - causal (I wish ATS has an auto spell check)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by kinglizard
 





My faith in God is complete though presenting a compelling argument based in scientific proof is impossible.


I starred your post because you have succinctly summed up this entire matter, however I have done enough research on this topic that for me I have proof from my personal perspective, it isn't even a matter of faith anymore for me.


Except that you show a clear lack of research into the issue. You've not done any research into the basic premises of evolution, you've not done any research into basic biological science, you've just absorbed a bunch of routine creationist talking points, many of which I'll refute later in this response.



It is logic, based on what we know, such as intelligent life begets intelligent life.


...what? Well, no. It's not logical. We know that, in an open system, further levels of complexity and meaning can arise in a system. We know through mountains of evidence that greater levels of intelligence arose in our evolutionary history.



Complex entities don't just happen, biological beings are infinitely more complex than non-living structures that are extremely complex.


More complex how? I mean, you're not providing an understanding of complexity. Are you saying that Jupiter is less complex than a bacteria?

Here's the thing, we actually have an understanding of chemistry. We know that complexity arises naturally. It's the basis of nuclear fusion, it's the basis of chemical reactions. We also know that it happens best with Carbon, the basis of our entire biology. We have enough information to infer that life can arise naturally.



If I said a F-22 fighter plane evolved over millions of years with out a designer, what would you say?
"Impossible"


...I'd say that you're using a horrible analogy that's typically made with a 747 instead.
F-22 fighter planes aren't carbon-based, airplanes don't reproduce, etc.

The analogy falls short on so many different levels.



So I say the same thing about a human, and it's complex DNA/RNA and cells each with different functions did not just happen.


So you, like millions of creationists before you, are arguing from personal incredulity. I'm sorry, but your own personal incredulity doesn't prove anything.



How does a multi-celled being living in the ocean, within it's structure of it's cells/DNA/RNA decide they suddenly need sex organs and vision to continue to function, when they didn't have them before or even need them?


Look at my avatar for your answer. Gradual change. We have various stages of the evolution of both sexual reproduction and photoreceptors throughout nature.



Let theoretical evolution answer that one.


Yet another example of your personal ignorance. I don't know whether someone is duping you or if you're duping yourself or what the relationship is, but you clearly haven't bothered reading up on biological sciences at all, let alone evolution.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that circuit theory is a theory. It works, it's factual, and we can apply it.

 


Now here's the crazy thing: None of your arguments matter.

Why? Well, we can observe evolution in labs. We can observe it in nature. We can see it happening now. So none of your arguments, which are addressing both abiogenesis and evolution at the same time, really matter.

And we have enough experimental evidence to show that abiogenesis can occur.

Please, pick up a basic Biology science book and read it with an open mind. A first year college Biology book would do. If it's a bit too difficult go ahead and read a high school level book. Just keep an open mind. Hell, you'll even learn more about the stuff we're not in dispute over from those books, which I might add were figured out the same way we figured out evolutionary biology.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join