Simple question for evolutionists

reply to post by Faith2011


There is Scientific Proof... (TESTED)

www.theomatics.com...

www.wordworx.co.nz...

"The divine hand has moved to prevent counterfeiting in the pages of the Bible in a similar manner to the line that runs through paper money. Bible numerics appears to be God's watermark of authenticity."

"The Bible Wheel is a view of the Bible that displays its sixty-six books as a circular matrix of three wheels within a wheel. The increase from the traditional one-dimensional list of books to the two-dimensional Bible Wheel reveals otherwise hidden patterns. It is literally a view from a "higher dimension" ...
www.biblewheel.com...

reply to post by Theophorus

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Frankly, we don't know what happened at the very very very very beginning of the universe, so we can't really answer that question.

I suppose you can't, now can you?

...is there an echo in here? Of course I can't, but that's probably because I'm not a world-renowned astrophysicist, so I wouldn't exactly know where to start.

Really your entire argument here is predicated on the idea of requiring people who accept a fact of biology to explain the entirety of the universe, which is sort of beyond dishonest.

Your theory of evolution brings you no closer to the truth of how we were created as humans or not.

Evolution actually fully explains that bit, it just doesn't explain anything beyond biology...which is sort of how science works. Biology doesn't explain physics.

We have more than enough evidence in genetics alone to prove evolutionary biology. Even if all of the transitional fossils that we have today suddenly disappeared it would be more than enough to prove the theory of evolution correct.

Now, there is a lot more to science than evolutionary biology. I'm not going to expect evolutionary biology to explain astrophysics and cosmology anymore than I'm going to expect organometallic chemistry to explain the mating habits of tuna. Science deals with specific answers with specific applications, not with broad sweeping absolute proclamations that don't provide any meaningful tools for us.

Truth is, is that The Judeo christian faith does.

...except that it doesn't. It makes an unsupported claim and then proclaims it as fact that must be taken on faith. There isn't even any explanatory power in the answer given by your religious proclamation...hell, your religion actually has two versions of that answer. Best to get those straight.

This you can not deny.

Yes, I can. There is no explanatory power in even the most general sense of the term in the Biblical creation account.

Now weather or not this truth is valid is up for debate.

...no, it's not up for debate, it's been shown to be invalid for the better part of the last 150 years.

Problem is ,is that you cant prove the Judeo-christian belief to be wrong, on the contrary Judeo-christians have been waiting for a sufficient answer for many milenia.

...and yet it has been proven wrong. We've proven that humanity evolved from previous species, we've proven that this happens in other species and is still happening to our species. We even have more than enough evidence to point out that each specific point in the Genesis account is out and out false. I mean, seriously, who really thinks that plants existed before the moon did?

Bible says that we as man were created. My question remains.

And the Bible is wrong.

So....I don't know

you said it.

Why is it that the blatantly ignorant are always the most arrogant?

id say its god but how can god exist without something creating god. sorry but this is confusing me so ill end it here, in that there must be a never ending chain of something ceeating something else

reply to post by connorromanow


Well...that's why the argument from design falls flat on its face. If everything requires a designer than the designer itself requires a designer. The only way to escape from this circular loop in the reasoning is to appeal to the fallacy of special pleading and confer without logical reason the attribute of 'not needing a designer' upon the designer who must necessarily be more complex than all of the things that must have been designed due to how complex they appear to be.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
So who created god?

Would you answer that? If everything gets its existance form something else... how is god any different... o yeah and you cant use the bible.

That's the point of the argument: if there were an infinite number of preceding causes, how would it be possible to get to our existence? For the sake of the argument, let's say both of us will live forever. I make a deal with you -- I'll give you $100 dollars when I finish clapping my hands an infinite amount of times. When would you expect to get the $100? Never of course. If there were an infinite number of causes before us, we would never have gotten to us. The idea is that there must be an "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" which is necessary to avoid an infinite regress. By the way, the first cause argument should go "everything that comes into existence" not "everything gets it's existence from something else". That would exclude a first cause.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by cLOUDDEAD


But there isn't any reason to ascribe omnipotence, omniscience, agency, personality, or any other trait upon the first cause beyond it...causing first. You might as well label the first cause red while you're at it because you'd be equally justified in that.

Of course...that's all assuming that the universe is strictly a -> b causal, which may not be the case.

reply to post by Theophorus

And so with everything.Everything exists,but they would not have existed if some other thing had not been what it was or done what it did.Considering this, none of theses things are an explanation of its own existence or the source of its own existence. In other words existence is contingent upon something else. Each thing possesses existence, can pass it on,but it did not originate its existence.Its essentially a receiver of existence. Thus being said, its impossible to conceive of a universe consisting exclusively of contingent beings.

Some very very smart people believe that we are in a type of matrix, and that nothing really exists unless it is observed. Consciousness seems to be the creative force in the universe.

Here is a free pdf E-book by Thomas Campbell called My Big Toe that describes 30 years of
research on this topic. It is very very good. books.google.ca...=onepage&q&f=true


y]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD

 

But there isn't any reason to ascribe omnipotence, omniscience, agency, personality, or any other trait upon the first cause beyond it...causing first. You might as well label the first cause red while you're at it because you'd be equally justified in that.

Where did I ascribe any of those in my post? All I did was explain the first cause argument.

Of course...that's all assuming that the universe is strictly a -> b causal, which may not be the case.

So are you saying that the universe brought itself into existence, or was always there?

reply to post by cLOUDDEAD


Sorry, my mistake, I was just trying to clarify the whole 'first cause' thing...anyway.

Well...there's no evidence that the universe ever wasn't....well, at least in some form or another. There's no reason for anyone to logically say that there was ever at one point nothing. We know there is matter in this universe, we have found no way to get rid of matter. We can move it, we can shape it, we can convert it into other forms of matter or energy...but it's still there. Is it then not logical to conclude that the likeliest explanation was that something of some sort has always existed?

Why is it that the blatantly ignorant are always the most arrogant?

And what does your contempt of other peoples views portray if it is not arrogance? While I understand your view points very well and on the whole agree with them, there is no reason to be condescending towards others. Belief is personal to the individual and whilst I disagree with many other peoples viewpoints it doesn't actually make me right, or in fact you right.

You study science, you read it and it makes sense to you, you see the logic behind it, you look at the proof they show and see if it is repeatable and then accept that as factual, but even a scientific approach is still base on belief, on your acceptance of the information given to you, the evidence presented rings true to you, some people read the bible and the messages contained inside it ring true for them, they find their personal truth within that book. It might not be your way, it isn't my way but it is their way and they have every right to believe as they will.

You say there is no proof of creationism but I say there is, you, me and every living thing on this planet is proof of creationism, I was created by the union of my mother and father, I was created and all living things were created by variations of this manner, the real question is how was the very first life form created, note how I said created because it had to be, weather it was chemicals reacting with amino acids to "create" the first living organism, or the hand of god, who of us can say with certainty? No one, we can only surmise or theorise but none of us has actual "PROOF"

Do I believe in god? Yes I guess I do of a sorts, not in any biblical sense, rather my own feeling of a creative energy, and I also believe in evolution, I think the planet was granted a life spark and we evolved from that, I think it is no coincidence that the sun gives off its energy in a double helix that matches our DNA pattern. I have no proof, it is just a belief, just as yours are just beliefs whether based on science or religion. You keep demanding that people prove their is a god, yet you cannot prove there is not one so it is just a case of Touché

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


Not this bovine fecal matter...it's not about 'ringing true', it's about being verified. Science doesn't happen to seem right to me, it's not like I just sort of get it...I can see the results in front of me just by pressing little pieces of molded organic material which transmit electronic signals to an electrical display in front of me. Science is verified, it's backed up by test after test after test.

As for your odd redefinition of creationism...no. Your parents didn't 'create' you, they produced you within the parameters of sexual reproduction. They had no say in your hair color beyond the genetics they were already granted, nor did they get to choose your novel mutations. And you're using the dishonest term 'created' repeatedly. It didn't have to be created, there are all sorts of nice, natural, logical words that can be used for an abiogenesis:

Arose
Formed
Developed
Emerged


That's four right there. Life could have arisen/formed/developed/emerged naturally. No creation needed.

And lastly you're going to switch the burden of proof. Of course I ask people to prove a positive claim...or did you miss that part in logic? Positive claims require proof, skeptical positions on positive claims do not. Of course I cannot prove a negative, it's not a case of "Touché", it's a case of people not being able to back up their claims. I also can't prove that there isn't a kegger being held by invisible, intangible, silent elves in my room, that doesn't give any credence to the claim that they are unless proof is given.

reply to post by Kingalbrect79


he's not specifically referring to the existence of intelligent beings. He's referring to existence period. I
let me put his question or point another way.
If energy can be neither created nor destroyed then how can the universe come to be. The answer I think is gravity because due to the laws of thermodynamics all of this kinetic energy will be dissipated. (thermal energy is merely kinetic energy coupled with molecular attractive forces) At this point it will have been converted completely to potential energy. At which point, with no kinetic energy to keep it apart, it will collapse back in on itself. Reigniting the process... though it's not an answer I like.
basically the universe must be eternal.
However it does seem that there must have been something to initiate that motion (especially if all matter truly is energy). Which does seem impossible without something outside of the bonds of nature.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by PrinceDreamer

 

And lastly you're going to switch the burden of proof. Of course I ask people to prove a positive claim...or did you miss that part in logic? Positive claims require proof, skeptical positions on positive claims do not. Of course I cannot prove a negative, it's not a case of "Touché", it's a case of people not being able to back up their claims. I also can't prove that there isn't a kegger being held by invisible, intangible, silent elves in my room, that doesn't give any credence to the claim that they are unless proof is given.

And where is your proof how life started in the universe? Where is your proof of where the universe came from? And don't quote me Hawkins or any other, I want YOUR proof, not something you have read and accepted, I want proof from you? But you can't give me any can you, it is just your belief from reading others material. The big bang theory is just that a theory, with no proof of fact, it is just accepted as the most logical reasoning by atheistic scientists. And yet none of them can come up with a logical theory where the substance that went bang came from. All you do is try to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you and quote others scientific work, that doesn't make you a reasoned thinker, it just makes you a parrot

reply to post by cLOUDDEAD

That's the point of the argument: if there were an infinite number of preceding causes, how would it be possible to get to our existence?

exactly. Evolutionist claim we get our existence from a lower animal or perhaps the smallest form of matter conceivable and that we were not created .The rational truth is this: how can we account for our own existence if we are only receivers of existence.
Its impossible. Weather you believe in god or not, a reasonable person can not deny that. Thank you for reading and most importantly understanding my thread.

It's way to complicated replying to you. I don't have that much time on my hands. The point of the matter is that I will not change your mind although I believe it is in your best interest to seek your Creator, and you definitely will not change mine.
We will both find out who was right and who was wrong when we die. The only difference is that you're taking the bigger gamble if you are wrong.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

It didn't have to be created, there are all sorts of nice, natural, logical words that can be used for an abiogenesis:

Arose
Formed
Developed
Emerged

The one word thats missing is the word 'WILL'. meaning there must be a decision to create.My parents decided to create. God decided to create. Please go and define the word create.

reply to post by Theophorus


How do you account for all existence, whether it be our own or GOD's? How does GOD exist without being a receiver of existence? Wouldn't GOD's existence depend on people's faith and belief that GOD exists?

It further begs the question of ; what is existence? How could something exist outside the realm of space and time?

"I think therefore I am"

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


And...deflection.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
And where is your proof how life started in the universe?

I never claimed to have it...but that's okay, because being an atheist who accepts and understands science means I get to say things like "I don't know, but there are scientists trying to figure out the answer to that and other questions". Of course, the prevailing scientific thought is abiogenesis which I don't pretend to be an expert in.

Where is your proof of where the universe came from?

"I don't know, but there are scientists trying to figure out the answer to that and other questions"

And don't quote me Hawkins

Richard Dawkins?
or
Stephen Hawking?

Just because they're both British atheists who are prestigious scientists with "awkin" in their name does not mean they're interchangeable.

or any other, I want YOUR proof, not something you have read and accepted, I want proof from you?

Um...so I have to recreate the last few hundred years of scientific inquiry all on my own? I'm sorry, but I read and accept science because it is verifiable and testable and I can read documentation of its verification and testing.

But you can't give me any can you, it is just your belief from reading others material.

Well, I don't happen to have several hundred lifetimes nor hundreds of millions in research grants to provide my own direct evidence....but I still accept that computers work without having done computer science myself. I still accept the theories in physics related to their inner workings without direct evidence...for all I know all of that stuff I see when I open up my computer is really just a facade to hide little gnomes that magically operate it.

Frankly, why should someone who accepts science be expected to be some sort of ubermench who is an experimental scientist in every single field? I'm going to accept aerodynamics on what I've read, no need for me to prove it myself.

The big bang theory is just that a theory, with no proof of fact, it is just accepted as the most logical reasoning by atheistic scientists.

Atheistic scientists, theistic scientists too....hell, a priest was one of (though not the only) people who helped come up with some of the fundamentals. And there is plenty of proof...the cosmic background radiation, the expanding of the universe, everything that we would expect from a 'big bang' universe is present in ours.

And yet none of them can come up with a logical theory where the substance that went bang came from.

...maybe it didn't come from anywhere, but you do realize that they're working on it, right? It's not exactly a simple problem.

All you do is try to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you and quote others scientific work, that doesn't make you a reasoned thinker, it just makes you a parrot

No, it makes me a reasoned thinker. I'm not quoting scientific work because it's from an authority, I'm quoting it because it makes sense, and I'll be the first person to point out problems in experimental design or any other problems that might have arisen in the scientific work.

Now, I'm not belittling anyone...you're just demonstrating your ignorance. I'm calling you out on it. Hell, you didn't even bother to address anything I actually wrote, you just deflected.

reply to post by creatednotEvolved


Creationist grab bag of excuses! No, it's not really all that complicated and I don't have all that much time on my hands either.

And no, I'm not taking a bigger gamble. What if any of the other religions in human history were right? What if Ba'al is the one true deity? That would put you in a worse position than an atheist.

reply to post by Theophorus


Ok...you're claiming that a deity decided to create without providing any evidence of this deity or any evidence that living things on this planet are a result of this unproven beings 'will'.