Evolution is proven false!

[sfs]

All natural laws oppose life. None has been found anywhere nor any
laws of nature are known that point to life or give reason why it would
occur. All laws point to increasing disorder and loss of useful energy
eventually leading to heat death of the universe.

So you're arguing that the universe was not designed for life, right? Because that sure sounds like what you're arguing. The universe was designed by one creator, or maybe it just exists, and some other intelligence came along and added life to it, even though life really doesn't belong here.

(Admittedly, your premise is completely wrong -- no known laws of nature actually "oppose" life. But even if your premise were correct, your argument still wouldn't make much sense.)

 

[lesliedellow]

For an atheist whose central dogma states that everything must have a scientific explanation, even if neither I , nor anybody else, knows what it is, there can, by definition, be no evidence for anything beyond the natural.

 

[Messy]

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

proof of God
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

 

[Kylie]

Subscribing. *Helps herself to some of the popcorn*

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Subscribing. *Helps herself to some of the popcorn*

You can put the popcorn down. Apparently, God has already been proven to exist, and in one post, no less.

 

[Davian]

I didn't catch that. What was the source of energy for the cosmos again?

I dunno. How much was needed?

And, to be clear, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not longer an issue for you, as far as the Earth is concerned?

 

[SkyWriting]

I dunno. How much was needed?

The Atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan
converted the weight of about one dime from
mass into energy.

You would need that amount of energy for each
mass-of-a-dime that you see.

 

[Kylie]

You can put the popcorn down. Apparently, God has already been proven to exist, and in one post, no less.

Oh no!

Wait, which post was that?

 

[EternalDragon]

So you're arguing that the universe was not designed for life, right? Because that sure sounds like what you're arguing. The universe was designed by one creator, or maybe it just exists, and some other intelligence came along and added life to it, even though life really doesn't belong here.

(Admittedly, your premise is completely wrong -- no known laws of nature actually "oppose" life. But even if your premise were correct, your argument still wouldn't make much sense.)

The universe was designed for life but the sin of Adam and Eve
cursed it. It will be made right again. It must go through this
purifying process, if you will. Just as crops must be nurtured, grow,
be cleared of weeds and then finally harvested.

 

[Davian]

The Atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan
converted the weight of about one dime from
mass into energy.

You would need that amount of energy for each
mass-of-a-dime that you see.

Zero, then. Not much call for an "all-powerful god" by that measure.

 

[Kylie]

The universe was designed for life but the sin of Adam and Eve
cursed it. It will be made right again. It must go through this
purifying process, if you will. Just as crops must be nurtured, grow,
be cleared of weeds and then finally harvested.

Yes, I'm sure that before the fall, Adam and Eve could have survived the sulfuric acid rain on Venus...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Oh no!

Wait, which post was that?

Whoo boy! Just look around.

This is like asking for evidence of mankind on earth.

Just look around.

How could I have been so blind.

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, I'm sure that before the fall, Adam and Eve could have survived the sulfuric acid rain on Venus...

Earth was designed for Adam and Eve, not Venus. Why are you now
placing them on that planet?

 

[Kylie]

Earth was designed for Adam and Eve, not Venus. Why are you now
placing them on that planet?

You said that the universe was designed for life but it was only after the Fall that this changed. So, by this logic, before the fall, Adam and Eve could have lived elsewhere in the universe (providing they could have gotten there).

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You said that the universe was designed for life but it was only after the Fall that this changed. So, by this logic, before the fall, Adam and Eve could have lived elsewhere in the universe (providing they could have gotten there).

Don't you realize Venus was a paradise before the fall as well? There was no sulfuric acid there until we ate the forbidden fruit.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No evidence then?

It took me forever to get that sentence right. There have always been arguments for (note: not 'to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt') the existence of the God of the Bible, but they're all based on a presupposition that GOD exists.

Do you know any of these arguments presented by Thomas Acquinas?*



As the OP is quite specific about what sort of God i.e. Creator God, or Intelligent Designer God, it narrows the field of play considerably.

I'm not as fluid in Christian Apologetics, as I once was, but I think it'd probably be the old school version of the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

it's a pity that the OP is asking the question this way, as there is therefore no place for a more modern development on the Cosmological argument.

I refer:

'....In modern philosophy, the argument was defended by William Lane Craig in his 1979 book The Kalām Cosmological Argument. Since that time, the term Kalām cosmological argument has come to be used for the debate between Craig and his critics, which involves the interpretation of Big Bang cosmology and contemporary notions of causality. ....'**

William Lane-Craig's argument, runs like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

So, what have you got?

---
* http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm
** Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional Viewing: The KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT | William Lane-Craig at the Georgia Tech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ58aloF7Bc

'On March 3rd, 2014 Dr William Lane Craig gave a lecture on the Kalam Cosmological Argument at Georgia Tech University. This video also includes the Q&A time at the conclusion of the lecture.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/ ....'

 

[EternalDragon]

You said that the universe was designed for life but it was only after the Fall that this changed. So, by this logic, before the fall, Adam and Eve could have lived elsewhere in the universe (providing they could have gotten there).

Really? I can't tell if you are being serious or just pulling my leg.

Perhaps you are just having trouble understanding the big picture?

 

[EternalDragon]

Double post when site went down.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No evidence then?

Of course, none of that matters because the initial statement by Sofaman, is unsupported by any alternative "scientific" theory.*

EVOLUTION IS PROVEN FALSE!

Now give us your evidence for either a creator or intelligent designer please

( my capitals and bold, with exclamation mark )


---
* What is a scientific theory?

Stephen J. Gould:
'...Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ....'

excerpt from "Evolution as Fact and Theory" : Discover, May 1981

 

[Messy]

Zero, then. Not much call for an "all-powerful god" by that measure.

How can all mass and energy just come out of nothing? I never see that happening nowadays, only when a new finger is created in a healing service in the Name of Jesus.