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.

 

Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

page: 33
39
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





SO if it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


Monkeys use sticks to get to ants they can't reach...and we can fully explain many many of the natural things like mountains, or how humans evolved. Not once has anyone ever found objective evidence suggesting a deity is involved in it...




Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Being?


You keep on repeating this over and over and over again like a parrot. People have explained to you multiple times that it's not just "blind chance" being the alternative to intelligent design. Scientists claim (and prove) that natural forces are responsible for things...just like they're responsible for the tides, the earth rotating around the sun, humans evolving from an ape-like creature, and a ton of other stuff we can explain.

Of course you will just ignore that and continue to claim scientists say "blind chance" or "an accident" is responsible. All you accomplish is showing everyone here the extent of your lack of real scientific knowledge





I wonder why you left out “unguided process”. Does this mean then that “unguided process” is responsible for the existence of life?


Again, no one is saying it's an unguided process...it's just creationists claiming that. Physical and biological processes aren't an "unguided process". But who cares about facts, right?





But since you're convinced that “natural forces” created mountains and our sun - is it also responsible for the existence of life?


Like people have told you dozens of time, and even though you keep ignoring this every single time, we don't know how life started in the first place. But there's ZERO objective evidence hinting at a deity being responsible...and given that everything we can explain is the product of natural forces, it makes sense to assume they are also responsible for the emergence of life.




Are natural forces = unguided processes? Or are “natural forces” posses intelligence?


Unless you wanna call "gravity" intelligence...no, they don't possess intelligence. You make it sound as if those forces are like a person. They don't have a personality or consciousness, at least we have ZERO evidence that would support the opposite




If NOT, then how did your all powerful “natural forces” created mountains and our sun without guidance/intelligence?


We can fully explain how mountains form, and if you bothered to do some actual research, you would know too. In fact, we can perfectly explain how different kinds of mountains form...no intelligence required


Mountains explained




From what I gather I think I'm safe to assume that intelligence is unnecessary in your world. Just random accidents, unguided proccesses - natural forces are the "creators" of intelligent beings, powerful stars and billions of galaxies.


Exactly!! In the absence of any proof to the contrary, it could be considered common sense to make such an assumption...and clearly there's ZERO evidence suggesting the existence of a deity





Of course since common sense and objective evidence based on logic and true scientific facts does not exist in your worldview then I do understand why it's comedic to you.


All I care about is objective evidence and logic...and those things clearly don't support the claim a deity exists. Like I said, there's ZERO evidence supporting the claim something like a god exists...but plenty of objective evidence supporting the claim we evolved over millions of years from species that are now extinct, or evidence that clearly shows how mountains are formed.

In short...how about you do some real research for a change instead of repeating nonsense like "mere accident" or "blind chance" that only serve to show us how ignorant you are, and how little you really seem to know about science. I'm NOT attacking your lack of knowledge, but you are asking questions that have been answered before (including direct responses to questions you asked), and the fact that you just ignore rational, logical answers if they go against your IRRATIONAL view of the world clearly shows what a shining beacon of ignorance you are


It's not as if you don't know the real answers, you chose to ignore them on purpose to prevent your house of cards fairy tale world form collapsing...quite sad for someone living in the 21st century




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ah, yes. Another God promotion from the indefatigable edmc^2, who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh.

Guess what? I’m not playing this time.

And frankly, my sensible friends, neither should you. I say we stop feeding this creationist’s habit.


i agree...i've been here long enough to recognize the OP's "views" and it is useless to use common sense, logic, or critical thinking with this person. it is his belief, and he is welcome to it.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik
 

If it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


While it takes intelligence for us to copy nature it doesn't mean that nature requires intelligence to make the real thing.


That is, objective evidence shows that it requires so much knowlwdge, intelligence, organization, team of brilliant men/women to design and build a wing of an aircraft - then what would it take to design and build the real thing?


The point of my little list is to point out that what you call objective evidence (facts), while actually being objective facts, do not necessarily support what you propose. This is the merry go round we've been on for much of this thread.

The above is a good example. It is a fact that we use intelligence to copy nature but it doesn't mean that nature requires it. You take the leap of logic to assume it does.

So back to square one, what proof is there that nature uses intelligence to weave it's wonders? Because, our crude method of manipulating matter isn't proof of how nature does it.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ah, yes. Another God promotion from the indefatigable edmc^2, who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh.

Guess what? I’m not playing this time.

And frankly, my sensible friends, neither should you. I say we stop feeding this creationist’s habit.


i agree...i've been here long enough to recognize the OP's "views" and it is useless to use common sense, logic, or critical thinking with this person. it is his belief, and he is welcome to it.



Of course it’s useless to those who blatantly ignore it even if it’s staring them in the eye.

For example as stated in the OP – common sense, logic or critical thinking leads me to believe and conclude that:

Fact1: The Universe and the Earth had a beginning. Do you agree? I’m sure you agree based on objective evidence.

Using critical thinking, based on common sense and logic, if the Universe had a beginning then there must be someone who created it for how could the universe exist without someone putting it together.

I’m sure you know what E=mc2 is. If not then please do some research?

I would like to elaborate further but it might be useless since you’re not even able to disprove Fact1.

As regards to the question who designed the Designer (a favorite line from atheist)? The ULTIMATE answer is No One – for the Designer is the Creator – POSSESSING the ability to transform ENERGY into matter.

Is this scientific you say? Is there evidence of this you say?

What does logic and common sense say? If you believe what I stated in the OP then you might understand critical thinking.

You see part of the problem why people like you can’t grasp it and fully understand it is because your critical thinking is limited to the physical. I on the other hand (like Sir Isaac Newton/Kepler, et al) can go beyond that. I can see and understand the spiritual dimension of things, the reason behind the existence of things. Why they exist and for what purpose. You on the other hand (I assume) don’t see the ultimate purpose of things – especially life.

So of course common sense, logic and critical thinking is very limited for those who view things without purpose.
Anyway – thanks for commenting.

Ty,
edmc2



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


So I'm safe to assume then that your 'creator' of all things is UNINTELLIGENT Nature or per MrXYZ "Natural Forces", correct?

If so then I'm correct to assume again that an "unguided process" is your creator.

And common sense and logic tells that an unguided process is blind process.

Thus proving my point again.

ty,
edmc2
edit on 24-6-2011 by edmc^2 because: ty



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





common sense, logic or critical thinking leads me to believe and conclude that


You're trying to be ironic, right?




Fact1: The Universe and the Earth had a beginning. Do you agree? I’m sure you agree based on objective evidence.


Good star, you got that one right...




Using critical thinking, based on common sense and logic, if the Universe had a beginning then there must be someone who created it for how could the universe exist without someone putting it together.


Using you're "logic" (lol), mountains had a beginning, and for it to exist there must be a deity creating mountains.

Of course, you applied real logic instead of whatever crazy thought processes you're using, you'd realize that we can fully explain how mountains were created by natural forces. No intelligence required.




I would like to elaborate further but it might be useless since you’re not even able to disprove Fact1.


People don't disagree with you saying the earth/universe had a beginning...they are amazed at your leap of faith claiming everything that lives requires an intelligent creator while failing complete at providing any real evidence supporting that claim.





As regards to the question who designed the Designer (a favorite line from atheist)? The ULTIMATE answer is No One – for the Designer is the Creator – POSSESSING the ability to transform ENERGY into matter.



Soooooooo...basically: Nothing can come of nothing...except for the thing creating nothing out of nothing. Got it.

Are you serious??? Madness, if that's you're dummy account playing a stereotypical creationist, PLEASE stop it...I'm wasting so much time refuting nonsense





What does logic and common sense say? If you believe what I stated in the OP then you might understand critical thinking.



I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "logic", "common sense", and "critical thinking" as you clearly don't know what they mean





You see part of the problem why people like you can’t grasp it and fully understand it is because your critical thinking is limited to the physical.


As in, we don't just make crap up because we can't deal with not having all the answers?


Again...look up the definition of critical thinking





I on the other hand (like Sir Isaac Newton/Kepler, et al) can go beyond that. I can see and understand the spiritual dimension of things, the reason behind the existence of things.


First of all...comparing yourself to those guys? Really? Very humble


Are you trying to say your scientific knowledge is at the same level as someone who lived over 200 years ago?




Why they exist and for what purpose. You on the other hand (I assume) don’t see the ultimate purpose of things – especially life.


Purpose? What purpose are you talking about? Everyone believes to have a different purpose.




So of course common sense, logic and critical thinking is very limited for those who view things without purpose.


Let me reply to this with a picture until you bother actually looking up the definitions of "common sense" and "logic"





posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Please don't assume.

What exactly is your point and how would this prove it?

All that has been asked is for proof. The OP alluded to some but you have not offered any.


edit on 24-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quickfix
....."God" is an alien...need i say more??

It makes the most sense...

and you do realize the Illuminati created some of the bible right?

You left out the book of Thomas and the Dead Sea's Scrolls...

Maybe you should look into those...
edit on 8-4-2011 by Quickfix because: (no reason given)



Their are many false books out there, the bible is a book of truth and one of the main protractors of this truth is the father of all lies, Satan. Satan is very intelligent and knew if he produced all these false gospels and letters that in time they would be used to further confuse and draw Gods children from the TRUTH which is of God.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Please don't assume.


Well, let's take a look at what you said again:


While it takes intelligence for us to copy nature it doesn't mean that nature requires intelligence to make the real thing.


Are you saying that Nature is intelligent or not? You said "it doesn't mean that nature requires intelligence to make the real thing." So what can I conclude with this statement?

Nature is unintelligent. Unless you're actually saying it is. A simple yes or no will do if you're not sure.



What exactly is your point and how would this prove it?

All that has been asked is for proof. The OP alluded to some but you have not offered any.


Point is - why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

And based the evidence presented so far it's the reality - scientific facts agree with biblical facts.

Interesting thing is whenever science is in conflict with biblical facts - the Word of God is ALLWAYS correct.

Case n point:

Fact1: The Universe and the Earth had a beginning - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1).

Fact2: The Stars/Galaxies are spread out in a fine construction from our pov - "the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,” (Isaiah 40:22)

Fact3:The Earth is being held by empty space - “He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7.)

Fact4: The Earth is a sphere / circular ((Isaiah 40:22)

Fact5: “Star differs from star in glory.” —1 Cor. 15:41.

Fact6: The Universe is governed by laws - "Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, or could you put its authority in the earth?”— (Job 38:31-33.)

Fact7:“life comes only from life.” Of Jehovah God/Yahweh (YHWH), it is written: “With you is the source of life.”—Ps. 36:9.

Fact8: Genetic Code -- "Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing," (Psalm 139:13-16)

Fact9: Animals, plants and humans reproduce “according to [their] kind.” (Gen. 1:11, 21, 24, 25)

there are literally hundreds more I can list but the above should be more than enough.

Common sense, logic and critical thinking also leads me to a conclusion that design is design and that design requires a designer. The complex the design the greater the capability and intelligence of the designer.

Scientific and engineering facts tells me that if a wing of a 747 Jumbo jet was designed based on a wing and flight patterns of birds then the actual wing itself must also be designed - by higher intelligence.

It's both unscientific and the height of ignorance for someone to say that intelligent (human) beings can produce a Boeing 747 airplane and at the same time say that an "unguided process" can produce the entire Universe and life itself.

And by your admission you daskakik said that the universe was produced by unintelligent nature - an unguided process.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





And based the evidence presented so far it's the reality - scientific facts agree with biblical facts.



You haven't presented a grain of objective evidence in this thread. Even worse, every time someone completely destroys your arguments, you just ignore it


And no...scientific facts often don't agree with claims in the bible. The bible is full of inaccuracies and stuff that's demonstrably wrong...like the claim that humans just popped up on earth in their current form, or the claim that a global flood happened





Interesting thing is whenever science is in conflict with biblical facts - the Word of God is ALLWAYS correct.


So in your fantasy land nothing could ever contradict the bible...even though in reality, it clearly does. Global flood, never happened. People surviving inside whales, complete and utter nonsense. Even the Exodus story is historically incorrect. And of course it's a fact that the claim humans just popped up in their current form without evolving from a species that is now extinct is also nonsense.




Fact1: The Universe and the Earth had a beginning - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1).


You are sneaking in the god part. It's reasonable to assume the earth and universe had a beginning...but given the complete lack of evidence supporting the claim that a deity was involved, it would be laughably ignorant to claim just that.




Fact2: The Stars/Galaxies are spread out in a fine construction from our pov - "the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,” (Isaiah 40:22)


The most detailed picture we have looks nothing like a tent. But who cares about facts if they contradict your belief...right?


You just keep on reposting all your points and ignore every single answer that points out how incorrect you are


Welcome to the 21st century, stop believing in fairy tales that are demonstrably wrong!




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Wow you jumped to a whole bunch of conlcusions.


Are you saying that Nature is intelligent or not? You said "it doesn't mean that nature requires intelligence to make the real thing." So what can I conclude with this statement?

Nature is unintelligent. Unless you're actually saying it is. A simple yes or no will do if you're not sure.


From the proof that I have seen nature is indeed unintelligent.


And based the evidence presented so far it's the reality - scientific facts agree with biblical facts.


You have not presented any objective evidence in support of this. I see you don't understand what that actually is. This is why I took the position that we come to an agreement as to what an objective fact in support of something actually is. I see you refuse. You just want to keep going around in circles.


Scientific and engineering facts tells me that if a wing of a 747 Jumbo jet was designed based on a wing and flight patterns of birds then the actual wing itself must also be designed - by higher intelligence.


That is the leap in logic that I have mentioned before. This isn't true. The fact that we need intelligence doesn't mean nature requires it. Again do you have any proof or do you only have this weak association that you keep trying to pass off as evidence?


And by your admission you daskakik said that the universe was produced by unintelligent nature - an unguided process.


I never said anything like that. I said nature may not need intelligence to weave it's wonders. This in no way includes or excludes any intelligent being or beings from reality. I mearly pointed out that using mans use of intelligence as a basis for your argument is wrong because it is not an objective fact in support of your theory.



edit on 24-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


SO if it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?
Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Being?

and... you answers is...


Monkeys use sticks to get to ants they can't reach...and we can fully explain many many of the natural things like mountains, ….


As Sherlock Holmes used to say – elementary my dear Watson. Of course through observation and study of naturally occurring things we can fully explain such things but the next statement is still a theory and will remain a theory:

That is –

how humans evolved.


And this theory will keep “evolving” err changing as new information comes up. Eventually it will be proven to be absolutely false.

As for what you said next –


Not once has anyone ever found objective evidence suggesting a deity is involved in it...


Obviously, either you’re purposely ignoring the obvious or you haven’t heard of the great scientists / physicist like Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Pasteur, Maxwell, Morse, Stokes and many more famous men of science. There are also many more men and women who work in various fields of science and engineering who “found objective evidence” of God’s handiwork in nature.

But since you don’t or are not willing to recognize their FINDINGS as objective evidence of God then as expected you will proclaim ignorance. Proving once again that atheist based their belief on preconceived old ideas.

Next you said:

You keep on repeating this over and over and over again like a parrot.


Umm no, I was just making sure that you’re consistent with your answers because you seem to be bouncing all over.

Here’s what I mean:

First you keep saying:

“we don't know how life started in the first place”


Now you say:


natural forces, it makes sense to assume they are also responsible for the emergence of life.

So which one is it? I assume the latter, correct?

Now back to my Q:

SO if it requires intelligence to successfully copy nature's wonders and see them as "feat of engineering" then what would it take to design and build the real thing?

Blind chance, unguided process or an Intelligent Being?

Ur reply:

People have explained to you multiple times that it's not just "blind chance" being the alternative to intelligent design.


OK – let’s clarify this one further.

So per ur belief since “it's not just "blind chance" being the alternative to intelligent design” you’re claiming now that:


Scientists claim (and prove) that natural forces are responsible for things...just like they're responsible for the tides, the earth rotating around the sun, humans evolving from an ape-like creature, and a ton of other stuff we can explain.


So that should settle it now – so to you:


natural forces, it makes sense to assume they are also responsible for the emergence of life.

In other words – in the Atheist world, Natural Forces IS the creator of life and everything that exist. Correct?

Next you said:


Of course you will just ignore that and continue to claim scientists say "blind chance" or "an accident" is responsible. All you accomplish is showing everyone here the extent of your lack of real scientific knowledge


I’m surprised of your ignorance on this and blaming me for it. That I “continue to claim scientists say "blind chance" or "an accident" is responsible.”

Unfortunately I can’t take the CREDIT on this.

Here let me inform you in case you’re not aware of it yet. Let’s just take a few samples.

Here’s one. Professor Richard Dawkins said in his book The Selfish Gene:

He said that:


…a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”

Here’s another:

An excerpt from the highly recognized evolution website – TalkOrigins on “chance”:


The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning.

But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms. -- Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod


From Gould:


"In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predicatability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations. A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity, order and predictability--at least in the long run. ... Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness." --- Gould


But as can be expected – you and your fellow atheist and evolutionist will try to erase these unfounded theories and will try to sweep them into the dustbin of discarded theories to be replaced by another erroneous theory like the statement you made below.

That is:

natural forces, it makes sense to assume they are also responsible for the emergence of life.

Now let’s continue on these confusing lines of thoughts and try to untangle them.

You said that:


Again, no one is saying it's an unguided process...it's just creationists claiming that. Physical and biological processes aren't an "unguided process". But who cares about facts, right?


Yet as I’ve already shown – evolutionist scientists themselves made this claim. In fact the evolution community are divided on this issue. One camp reject it while another camp believe it to be so.

Note what GG Simpson said:


There is, on one hand, a randomness as to where and when a mutation will occur. ...
On the other hand, the term "randomness" as applied to mutation often refers to the lack of correspondence of phenotypic effect with the stimulus and with the actual or the adaptive direction of evolution. ... It is a well known fact, emphasized over and over again in discussions of genetics and evolution, that the vast majority of known mutations are inadaptive. ...
A population in process of adapting to change in its environment or to an environment new to it may be expected to have some adaptive instability. It may be adapting by utilization of expressed and potential variability but it may also be adapting in part by adaptive mutations. Sooner or later and in some changes of adaptation, if it is true that mutation is the ultimate source of material for evolution, adaptive mutation must be involved. In spite of the general "randomness" of mutation in the special senses noted, there is adequate evidence that adaptive mutations are often available under such circumstances.


Confusing huh? On one hand randomness is responsible and not on another.

Here’s another confusing statement:


It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. [Dawkins 1996: 67]


Yet in his book The Selfish Gene:


…a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”


Continuing on “Dawkins”:


Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.
Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]


In short – it’s a well known fact that “randomness” and “chance” or “unguided processes” are attributes of evolution theory. Still doubt it? May I suggest you do more research?

Now back to your confusing and inaccurate statement. You said:


Like people have told you dozens of time, and even though you keep ignoring this every single time, …


Again No. I’m not ignoring them but emphasizing them for clarity.

Because you admit that:


we don't know how life started in the first place.


Yet you contradicted yourself, notice again for emphasis:


natural forces, it makes sense to assume they are also responsible for the emergence of life.


So clarification is warranted.

Now back to my original Q:

Are natural forces = unguided processes? Or are “natural forces” posses intelligence?

My answer to own Q (to repeat) is - OF COURSE as I see it from the POV of an Athiest (you) or an Evolutionist (you et al) - natural forces are unguided process, they DO NOT POSSES INTELLIGENCE - unless someone with INTELLIGENCE wielded them properly.

To prove my point, here let me explain again (for emphasis):

Ur reply to my Q was:


Unless you wanna call "gravity" intelligence...no, they don't possess intelligence. You make it sound as if those forces are like a person. They don't have a personality or consciousness, at least we have ZERO evidence that would support the opposite


So you just confirmed what I’ve been saying all along, that “natural forces” are unguided processes with no intelligence behind them (it). They can ONLY become intelligent - like I said - when someone with Intelligence wielded them/use them correctly.

For example – in my field of work: electronics.

In order to design and build something of value, safe and useful – one must know the rules and parameters governing electrical and magnetic forces. Designing or building something “randomely”, by “blind chance” or by an “unguided process” is a BIG NO NO.

The consequence of a catastrophic failure for not observing established rules are not ONLY immeasurable but deadly. In the mechanical field: imagine designing a simple bolt that connects the parts of a plane – if that bolt breaks in flight, imagine the consequence.

Now that’s another scientific fact that you can’t disprove.

Yet in the Atheist / Evolutionist world - unguided process IS the rule.

As to my Q on how did your all powerful “natural forces” created mountains and our sun without guidance/intelligence?

you said:


We can fully explain how mountains form, and if you bothered to do some actual research, you would know too. In fact, we can perfectly explain how different kinds of mountains form...no intelligence required


Thanks for the answer but I’m fully aware of the PROCESS – even grade school kids are aware of these phenomena. But I guess I needed to explain it deeper. When I said create – I meant the elements that formed the mountains and the sun. Without guidance/intelligence – how did the elements came together?

But since in the Atheist world “...no intelligence required”, to even create mountains and the sun (a nuclear reactor), thus it’s accurate to say then that “natural forces” are indeed “unguided processes” (at least in your worldview).

Note again what I said:

From what I gather I think I'm safe to assume that intelligence is unnecessary in your world. Just random accidents, unguided proccesses - natural forces are the "creators" of intelligent beings, powerful stars and billions of galaxies.



Exactly!! In the absence of any proof to the contrary, it could be considered common sense to make such an assumption...and clearly there's ZERO evidence suggesting the existence of a deity


Thanks for confirming it again – that natural forces are indeed unguided processes (in your world). Thus your “creator” is no other than an “unguided, unintelligent process”.

So I’m correct all along on what I’ve been saying: That for the Atheist/Evolutionist POV - BLIND CHANCE/UNGUIDED PROCESS IS WHAT CREATED EVERYTHING.


Which makes the rest of your statement below - nonsense.


All I care about is objective evidence and logic...and those things clearly don't support the claim a deity exists. Like I said, there's ZERO evidence supporting the claim something like a god exists...but plenty of objective evidence supporting the claim we evolved over millions of years from species that are now extinct, or evidence that clearly shows how mountains are formed.

In short...how about you do some real research for a change instead of repeating nonsense like "mere accident" or "blind chance" that only serve to show us how ignorant you are, and how little you really seem to know about science. I'm NOT attacking your lack of knowledge, but you are asking questions that have been answered before (including direct responses to questions you asked), and the fact that you just ignore rational, logical answers if they go against your IRRATIONAL view of the world clearly shows what a shining beacon of ignorance you are

It's not as if you don't know the real answers, you chose to ignore them on purpose to prevent your house of cards fairy tale world form collapsing...quite sad for someone living in the 21st century


So in light of these revelations who is the IRRATIONAL person here?

I say – Life can only come from life – science and nature backs it up. You on the other hand believed that:

natural forces, it makes sense to assume they are also responsible for the emergence of life.


I say the beginning of life is from someone who is Eternal - common sense and logic agree, yet you say:

natural forces, it makes sense to assume they are also responsible for the emergence of life.


I say, throughout nature by careful observation – we can see Intelligence behind it yet you say:

“...no intelligence required”,


Need I go further?

Now let’s take a look at your other post.

….


edit on 26-6-2011 by edmc^2 because: spell check/correction



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


So daskakik - do you agree with MrXYZ? That an "unintelligent, unguided natural forces" - a blind chance is the "creator" of all things?

ty



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I agree that you have not proven otherwise.

I think my beliefs probably differ from Mr.XYZ's but I also don't have any proof so I don't go around calling it fact. I think we already covered this in this same thread.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   


So how did light evolve?

X



And no...scientific facts often don't agree with claims in the bible. The bible is full of inaccuracies and stuff that's demonstrably wrong...like the claim that humans just popped up on earth in their current form, or the claim that a global flood happened


How can anyone look, at the amount of water on earth and say, there is no scientific evidence for a global flood ?
That's just ignorant atheism. Not science at all.
edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Evolution only applies to living things.

If the polar caps were to melt the oceans would rise around 200 ft. Bad for low areas but there would still be a lot of land above water. Much different than the biblical story.

The US would look something like this:



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I agree that you have not proven otherwise.

I think my beliefs probably differ from Mr.XYZ's but I also don't have any proof so I don't go around calling it fact. I think we already covered this in this same thread.


Thanks for the reply, so would it safe to say then that "Nature" is the creator of all things to you?

I'm just narrowing this down - to make sure that I got it right.

MrXYZ believes that an "unguided natrural forces" is the creator of all things.
I assume Madness believes the same thing - unless I'm corrected.

So is it "Nature"?

ty
edmc2



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Who's talking about caps melting ?



Smaller planet same amount of water. I've just prooved X is wrong just by observing the amount of water on planet earth. All done scientificully.

Oh but peer reviews ? And all this crap and that ?
edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Sorry to complicate things but I believe that "unintelligent, unguided natural forces" are responsible for things in general in the universe (physical dimension) and something which I can't define is responsible for the rest.

The latter is not the creator described in the bible.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


But in the flood story the continents was already close to their present locations and above sea level (bigger earth according to the vid) so it would have taken additional water to cover them.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join