Natural selection v Intelligent design

[stevevw]

steve, I'm not going to dart down every rabbit hole you want to lead me down. It is clear that you don't really know what you are talking about. You have some fundamental misconceptions about what evolution entails. The best course of action is to get educated. Seek an online course in evolutionary biology. There are many such courses available, many are even free.

I have been studying evolution and biology. There is plenty of online info for this. Nature.com, Berkeley.edu, The National Center for Biotechnology info (NCBI) ect. There are many other sites and videos that give you a good understanding of evolution. Just reading the papers and essays of scientists who are experts in their fields and then getting some explanations for this is good for getting some understanding of particular discoveries for evolution.

I think I am able to get a good understanding and know the difference between a lay person and a scientists when they are talking about peer level science. Like I said I may not understand the deeper details but I can broadly understand what they are getting at. I gradually get a deeper understanding the more I read about these things. You not only learn but you are kept up to date with the latest thinking and discoveries about evolution.I want to know and learn as it helps me understand.

When someone talks about a particular aspect of genetics for example I have to then expand my research into the things they talk about and learn about those things before I can know what they mean when they say that there is no support for a particular process with evolution. I dont just accept what they say. Thats why it takes men so long to reply. But gradually I am getting a good understanding. Maybe one day I will do a course and I will get some credits as I will already know some of the stuff. But I am also doing a course in social welfare at the moment.

But so far all Ive heard from you is how wrong I am without any support for showing me where I am wrong. I have posted many points in the last few pages in which you haven't shown any counter evidence for it being wrong. I dont mind being wrong but I think you would have to show some support for that. I think in the time I have debated you I have hardly seen anything. Its easy to call what has been posted as a rabbit hole.

Thats the stock standard reply that comes when things are to hard to answer. What is a rabbit hole anyway. Are you saying that what I have mentioned is made up or unsupported. I have posted links to support each time and I am well aware of those who like to try and divert all evidence for disputing evolution into the crazy religious or lack of scientific knowledge camps to discredit what they say. But there is never a reply to what has been said with any support addressing the claims made. I wonder why that is. What I have mentioned is common knowledge even to evolutionists. It seems everyone acknowledges this accept you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have been studying evolution and biology. There is plenty of online info for this. Nature.com, Berkeley.edu, The National Center for Biotechnology info (NCBI) ect. There are many other sites and videos that give you a good understanding of evolution. Just reading the papers and essays of scientists who are experts in their fields and then getting some explanations for this is good for getting some understanding of particular discoveries for evolution.

Everything that you write suggests that you do not understand evolution or the evidence for it.

Maybe one day I will do a course and I will get some credits as I will already know some of the stuff.

That is a good idea.

But so far all Ive heard from you is how wrong I am without any support for showing me where I am wrong.

But I have, steve. You've gotten the fundamentals wrong, and I've pointed that out repeatedly.

I have posted many points in the last few pages in which you haven't shown any counter evidence for it being wrong.

As I said before, it's pointless having a discussion about what the latest literature says if you don't have a good grasp of the fundamentals.

I dont mind being wrong but I think you would have to show some support for that. I think in the time I have debated you I have hardly seen anything.

I have gone through some of the papers you posted and shown you that your interpretation of them is not correct. I have gone through and exposed some of your misconceptions regarding evolution and have repeatedly urged you to seek out reputable resources to remedy that. We can't have a debate if you don't understand the topic being debated.

Thats the stock standard reply that comes when things are to hard to answer. What is a rabbit hole anyway. Are you saying that what I have mentioned is made up or unsupported. I have posted links to support each time and I am well aware of those who like to try and divert all evidence for disputing evolution into the crazy religious or lack of scientific knowledge camps to discredit what they say. But there is never a reply to what has been said with any support addressing the claims made. I wonder why that is.

I've already told you why that is, several times.

 

[dgiharris]

Prove it, because a lot of his work has no logic to it, and failed.

Sending his son to Israel was a big mistake if he wanted to get a new religion going. Jesus being crucified was a bigger mistake and caused billions to die in the continual wars we've had since then. Choosing an insignificant tribe like the Jews, as the chosen people. Was the biggest mistake. Even I can see this, someone with an intellect are far beyond us mere mortals. Makes it an even bigger mistake.

I would agree with that because a lot of what he's claimed to have done seems to have no purpose, a waste of life, pointless and a failure. Given the high goals you set him.

My response to this post is that I think you've never met or worked closely with anyone who is superior in intelligence to you. I think you think you are smarter than you really are.

I had the privilege of meeting someone with an IQ north of 170. He taught quantum physics and higher order mathematics. He would often say something that at first pass seemed stupid but then when he would slow down and explain it to you, you'd have an "aha" moment and then realize just how stupid you are compared to him.

Your entire rant about "even I could see it was a mistake" yada yada yada is the height of hubris. You don't know what you don't know. Billions dying in continuous wars may serve a plan or it may be a necessity. I admit, I have no idea.

You have no idea what happens when we die. You have no idea of the forces involved in the production of this universe or other universes. I've read some interesting theories about how consciousness is a form of energy and that eventually when the universe collapses on itself and the big band starts all over that our consciousness will be reintroduced into the new universe... That is just one idea out of many. My point is simply we don't know what we don't know. So you ranting about how this or that is a mistake when you don't know the initial conditions or boundary conditions or final conditions or even a small portion of all the parameters involved is just plain silly.

 

[dgiharris]

I'm not asking that. I'm asking you to support one of your 'what if?' proposals with E=mc(2). Any one of your 'what ifs?' will do..

Okay, fine, you win. I will show how E=mc^2 relates to my argument using a loose geometric-like proof of logical deduction.

Let's back up. I made the claim that "if" God existed in another plane of existence, another universe that his frame of reference "could" be different. I cited that based on Einstein's theory of relativity and special relativity that time would probably be different to God than from us and our frame of reference. The reason I made this claim is because we KNOW 100% based on experiments done in this universe that time is not absolute.

So, lets focus right there. We know that in this universe time is not absolute. We know that satellites orbiting the Earth experience time dilation.. We know that galaxies accelerating away from us experience a different temporal effect than our galaxy.

The above is all the "maths" that prove the phenomena of time dilation that I am talking about. Specifically I put forth the premise that if God was in another universe his perception of time could differ from ours, that a day to him could be a billion years to us.

So, I have proven that time is not an absolute in our universe, that is I have proven that even in our OWN universe that various elements in our universe (i.e. planets, galaxies, etc) do NOT experience the same rate of time.

Therefore, if there were another universe, that universe would not experience time at the same rate as our universe for the simple logical reason that our entire universe does NOT adhere to a constant rate of time.

If god existed in another universe, and if that universe adhered to similar laws of physics as this universe does, then parts of his universe will be expanding at different rates and thus his universe would likewise NOT adhere to a constant rate of time. Thus, time dilation and different rates of time as measured by respective observers is possible.


So there you go, there is the answer to one of my "what ifs" using E=MC^2.

....This is an argumentum ad hominem as you are chracterising me as disingeneuous rather than responding with a rebuttal..

The reason I think you are being disingenuous is because I suspect you are not asking me a question because you believe I'm wrong. I think you know I'm right but are employing argumentative tricks to win an argument through attrition. If you understand Relativity at all, then you would have no problem with my claim that if God existed in another plane of existence or another universe that time could be different to him than to us. That is Relativity 101. Instead, you ask me to prove it and then if I don't you claim victory in an argument. That is why you are being disingenuous here. I suspect you will move the goal posts some more.

.......You keep making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence..

You are wrong again. I made no extraordinary claims. We know about the phenomena of time dilation. We have measured it in our satellites, so nothing extraordinary there. We know that things in different frames of reference likewise experience time dilation. We also know that even gravity can impact time. So nothing extraordinary there. Thus, speculating that a being in another universe would experience a different rate of time than what we experience here on Earth is nothing mind blowing. Not in the least. I have no idea why you would think so.

......I did not make any claim of a smoking gun. I directed you towards evidence of dark matter..

No. No you did NOT. Please stop lying. You directed me to links talking about "hypotheticals". You did NOT direct me to a link that proved the existence of dark matter or dark energy.

In turn, I directed you to links that showed the problems with dark matter and dark energy being verified in a lab (which to date they have NOT been).

Incidentally, evidence of dark matter WOULD be a smoking gun. That is the whole point of this aspect of our argument. I made the comment that a lot of cosmology is "up in the air". You then responded with your, "Oh yeah, prove it".

So lets stop right there. If I make the argument that XYZ is not understood and you make the argument that I am wrong, In effect, you are now arguing that XYZ is understood. In order for you to win this argument you need to show me that XYZ is understood.

When I say there are aspects of cosmology: dark matter and dark energy that are not understood or verified and you tell me I'm wrong, then you are implying that dark matter and dark energy are understood and verified. So the way to prove me wrong is to link me to some peer reviewed journals that conclusively prove the existence of dark matter and dark energy...

But you can't. I know you can't because I looked. I also linked you to articles that spelled out the problems the theory of dark matter and dark energy are having.

This is you being disingenuous again and playing argumentative tricks. You are trying to shift the burden of proof on me to prove that dark matter and dark energy are up in the air. However, in this case it is relatively easy for me to prove. I have looked and I can NOT find any peer reviewed journals citing experiments that have proven the existence of dark matter and dark energy. The best I have found is your weak sauce theoretical papers you have linked me to.

So, I consider this matter closed. I am claiming there are no unicorns. You are claiming that there are. You are demanding that I prove there are no unicorns. I respond by citing I've looked everywhere and I have found no unicorns. You respond by sending me an article on the possible existence of unicorns. I response with an article detailing the problems of unicorns and how no one has any proof of them. I then ask you to send me a picture of a unicorn and you refuse citing the burden is on me to prove they do not exist...

That is more or less how I see this argument. For this particular argument, the burden is on you to prove your unicorns. I've done my due diligence in presenting my arguments. The fact I can't find evidence of dark matter and dark energy proves my point. And my point was not so much that they don't exist. My point was simply that part of cosmology is "up in the air" and theoretical and still more or less figuring stuff out. I have no idea why you believe that argument is wrong.

As near as I can tell, I think you may be one of those people that like to argue in nihlist fashion. You sit back saying "no no no, prove it prove it prove it" while not offering anything in the way of argument or rebuttal. This is an easy way to argue. But, for some reason (i think because i type faster than I talk) I've engaged you and proven my points.

You can move the goal posts again or try to feign that I didn't make my points, but I have.

So unless you can provide me peer reviewed evidence of laboratory experiments that show the existence of dark matter and dark energy, your argument is lost and my argument is won.

......Once again: we cannot talk of proof in science. If WIMPs and MACHOs turn out to not be dark matter something else is dark matter. Why is it a problem to not know something at this time? Science is called tentative for a reason..

This is exactly my point. I'm wondering if you even know what I was arguing this whole time LOL

 

[Larniavc]

Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space,

1: Time dilation is not the same as your god existing outside of space time. THAT was the point you tried to make. It's great that you are aware of time dilation. But that is not what you said that I first replied too. It does not show that your god exists outside of space time.

2:

No. No you did NOT. Please stop lying. You directed me to links talking about "hypotheticals". You did NOT direct me to a link that proved the existence of dark matter or dark energy.

I have never used the word proof: I have been very careful to use the word evidence. It may be that you are conflating the two.

3: You've called me disingenuous five times, now. And an argumentative liar. Definite ad hom. May we keep things more friendly?

4:

So, I have proven that time is not an absolute in our universe, that is I have proven that even in our OWN universe that various elements in our universe (i.e. planets, galaxies, etc) do NOT experience the same rate of time.

Which has nothing to do with "Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space" And you missed gravity in your selection of equations.

5: Time dilation is not

. You started saying that

meant that "Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space,". Now you have decided to move from mass energy equivalence to time dilation. Your argument is all over the place.

6:

I made no extraordinary claims

On careful re reading you are correct. My apologies.

7:

If I make the argument that XYZ is not understood and you make the argument that I am wrong,

I did not say you were wrong: I directed you towards a paper. I did not claim it was proof. Evidence does not need to be proof to be evidence. There is not proof outside of maths (out of curiosity why did you "air quote" my use of the word "maths"?).

8:

This is exactly my point. I'm wondering if you even know what I was arguing this whole time LOL

Not so. Your point was about

meaning god existed outside of space time.

All the best.

 

[paulm50]

But do you seriously think a long winded discourse on this site about evolution and intelligent design will change a believer into a non believer. The whole point of faith is that you have FAITH, you believe in the bible and there is no way that you debunking the bible and stating it's unsound in science will change someones faith.

This is particularly true as there is a whole range of belief from fundamentalists who believe in the 6000 year old earth to the other end of the scale who believe in evolution.

I just think that sometimes you come across as patronising and dismissive, and I think as a guest on this site you should be more polite.

No. It's about those viewing and on the edge. They need to see the truth.

Much like religions do when trying to convert people.

My tone is bad. Is the information I post wrong?

 

[paulm50]

Because Stove is making an argument based on what he believes the consensus scientific view is. I'm curious to see if any actual scientists actually believe in this view or if he's just making stuff up. So far, I haven't seen much recent work from biologists concluding that females of every species are inherently inferior to their male counterpart, but here's your opportunity to educate us.

Stove is one of a handful who have a set goal and then try to find anyway to make the evidence fit.

Against this group are 1,000s of scientists who let the evidence lead them.

Logical reasoning from bad assumptions leads nowhere. Yours was a good example of this - you pretending that knowledge requires omniscience is a dead end from the start.

It's meant to be a dead end. There is no more information after "god did it".

It can also be used to replace a lack of knowledge. "The land flooded, people drowned, god did it and is unhappy with us."

 

[Dave RP]

No. It's about those viewing and on the edge. They need to see the truth.

Much like religions do when trying to convert people.

My tone is bad. Is the information I post wrong?

Sometimes it comes across as quasi scientific ramblings, I'm not a biologist or a scientist, my qualifications are in construction management, so I don't know if you're wrong in the detail.

I don't know where you live but here in London religion will be more or less dead in 2 or 3 generations, it's very much in the minority now, has zero influence in politics so why not just let them get on with it?

The "debate" regarding intelligent design is laughable in many ways, as you always come back to "who made the designer" or "where did the designer come from". The only answer is "God" and there all debate stops! So I feel it would be better to accept that faith in God prevents debate reaching a conclusion and leave it at that? I also think you should tone down your attitude a little, it's quite condescending at times.

 

[paulm50]

Okay, fine, you win. I will show how E=mc^2 relates to my argument using a loose geometric-like proof of logical deduction.

Let's back up. I made the claim that "if" God existed in another plane of existence, another universe that his frame of reference "could" be different. I cited that based on Einstein's theory of relativity and special relativity that time would probably be different to God than from us and our frame of reference. The reason I made this claim is because we KNOW 100% based on experiments done in this universe that time is not absolute.

You're linking Nature to god.

I'm not a physicist, so not sure of the argument. So correct me if I'm wrong.

If time in the Universe does vary. What has they to do or prove the existence of a god?

 

[paulm50]

Sometimes it comes across as quasi scientific ramblings, I'm not a biologist or a scientist, my qualifications are in construction management, so I don't know if you're wrong in the detail.

I don't know where you live but here in London religion will be more or less dead in 2 or 3 generations, it's very much in the minority now, has zero influence in politics so why not just let them get on with it?

The "debate" regarding intelligent design is laughable in many ways, as you always come back to "who made the designer" or "where did the designer come from". The only answer is "God" and there all debate stops! So I feel it would be better to accept that faith in God prevents debate reaching a conclusion and leave it at that? I also think you should tone down your attitude a little, it's quite condescending at times.

I find all my information online from verified sites.

London has a very strong religious community, Islam. The Internet is worldwide so we must think of people all over the World reading this.

I agree with you about the god argument.

Sorry if my tone is condescending when replying.

 

[dgiharris]

1: Time dilation is not the same as your god existing outside of space time. THAT was the point you tried to make. It's great that you are aware of time dilation. But that is not what you said that I first replied too. It does not show that your god exists outside of space time..

First, my argument was not that god exists outside of space time. My argument was "if" God existed outside of space time. Big difference.

Second, E=mc^2 is related to my arguments due to simple algebra. It is an integral part of the math when talking about space time and time dilation.

2:
I have never used the word proof: I have been very careful to use the word evidence. It may be that you are conflating the two..

Truth is I'm too lazy to go back and nit pick to be exact on this. I made an argument that dark energy and dark matter are not as "solid" as we'd like, using the term "up in the air". You then argued against me challenging me to prove that dark matter and dark energy were "up in the air". This infers the opposite to my argument, the opposite being that dark energy and dark mater are well understood and provable. You are now trying to back peddle and say, "Ahhhh I never said proof, I said evidence..."

We are missing the forest for the trees here. My argument is simply that DM and DE aren't definitive yet, it is theoretical and not proven/verified by a lab yet. This is 100% true. Therefore my argument so far is correct.

You argument as near as I can tell is that DM and DE show signs of promise and that there is evidence that they "may" exist in some form. Fine, I can easily grant that argument because this argument still does not disprove nor detract from my argument.

...3: You've called me disingenuous five times, now. And an argumentative liar. Definite ad hom. May we keep things more friendly?.

I'm not so sure. You're clearly a smart guy and I feel that you are almost just arguing for the sake of arguing. Like you know what I'm trying to say and even know that I am right but you are more concerned with trying to "win" the argument through a technicality or mistake I have made semantics wise even though you know what I meant to say. I've never been a fan of arguments that descend into that sort of muck. Maybe my negativity is misplaced and if so I do apologize

....4:

Which has nothing to do with "Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space" And you missed gravity in your selection of equations.

View attachment 161105

5: Time dilation is not View attachment 161106. You started saying that View attachment 161106 meant that "Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space,". Now you have decided to move from mass energy equivalence to time dilation. Your argument is all over the place.

Back to this. E=MC^2 is part of all of the above. My argument is not all over the place. I was arguing from the beginning that "if" god was on a higher plane of existence and/or in another universe and/or outside of time and space, then 1 unit of time for him could be a billion units of time for us. I've been very consistent on that point. Therefore, all of that stuff: time dilation, gravity, mass and energy equivalence is 100% germane to my argument and related. E=MC^2 is part of the very basic math that falls into all of that. So it 100% answers your mandate that I "show" how E=MC^2 relates to my argument which I did. Not quite sure how you don't see that. It is germane and relates exactly to my arguments in every sense.

....7:

I did not say you were wrong: I directed you towards a paper. I did not claim it was proof. Evidence does not need to be proof to be evidence. There is not proof outside of maths (out of curiosity why did you "air quote" my use of the word "maths"?).
.

Fair enough

 

[dgiharris]

....I don't know where you live but here in London religion will be more or less dead in 2 or 3 generations, it's very much in the minority now, has zero influence in politics so why not just let them get on with it?....

This is something I feel is happening to mankind as a whole. Religion has been on a sharp decline, not just in numbers but also in relevance to our respective lives. How many of us do things specifically because our religion requires us to?

Another aspect of the above is I wonder if Religious people care about the dwindling numbers? Sometimes, I feel a sense of righteous glee from religious types. A sorta vindication that the world is full of evil doers who are going to get exactly what they deserve come judgment day. Rather than try to save these people, I feel we are closing our doors to them, picking conflicts with them, purposefully taking stances that will at the least turn those people away from us (i.e. picking fights with scientific facts when those facts do NOT conflict with the bible whatsoever)

You're linking Nature to god.

I'm not a physicist, so not sure of the argument. So correct me if I'm wrong.

If time in the Universe does vary. What has they to do or prove the existence of a god?

I was simply arguing a what if. Basically, when arguing about why God does this or why God doesn't do that, we can't help but to argue from our perspective. So, I was simply arguing that "if" God existed in another universe or a higher plane of existence then his perspective would be so different from ours that things that make no sense to us could make perfect sense to him due to his different perspective. Take the concept of time. In this universe time is linear. But what if in his realm time was not linear, what if there was no time and everything happened simultaneously? How might that change ones perspective when thinking about humans on Earth? So basically, I was just arguing a long winded hypothetical. Essentially, when one presents an argument "Well, it makes no sense for God to do this..." my hypothetical would change the reference frame and under a "different" frame of reference it could make complete sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

No. No you did NOT. Please stop lying. You directed me to links talking about "hypotheticals". You did NOT direct me to a link that proved the existence of dark matter or dark energy.

In turn, I directed you to links that showed the problems with dark matter and dark energy being verified in a lab (which to date they have NOT been).

I'm totally jumping into the middle of an argument here and I'm probably not welcome, but I'm fascinated by the weirder things in the cosmos, so I wanted to ask about what you mean by proof of dark matter. We can see that something has mass that is causing gravity to pull on objects, but we can't see that mass (which has always been matter). But we can even see it visibly distort spacetime with Einstein rings, here's a pic:

So what other kinds of proof do you need that it exists? Not being sarcastic. I mean, finding it in a lab would be more like understanding it than understanding it exists.
Dark energy is more mysterious, so I won't comment on that.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is established in other threads that your concept of "peer reviewed" equals ONLY those publications that agree with your position

When have I discussed peer-reviewed research with you? Please post a link to the posts where I reject peer-reviewed research or retract this lie.

snipped pointless ranting

Seems like you're having trouble finding any scientists who actually believe what they're alleged to believe. That's pretty telling. It is almost as if the premise of the argument you're trying to defend was fabricated out of thin air.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well see how you twist truth (Something I am beginning to note in many of your responses)?

That's not a question. But no, I don't see how I twist truth. You'll have to be more specific if you expect this lame attempt at an insult to have any teeth.

I never said "knowledge" REQUIRES omniscience...one can KNOW many things not being omniscient, but CANNOT KNOW there is no God(s)

Why are the rules for knowledge about gods different than for any other knowledge?

 

[paulm50]

I was simply arguing a what if. Basically, when arguing about why God does this or why God doesn't do that, we can't help but to argue from our perspective. So, I was simply arguing that "if" God existed in another universe or a higher plane of existence then his perspective would be so different from ours that things that make no sense to us could make perfect sense to him due to his different perspective. Take the concept of time. In this universe time is linear. But what if in his realm time was not linear, what if there was no time and everything happened simultaneously? How might that change ones perspective when thinking about humans on Earth? So basically, I was just arguing a long winded hypothetical. Essentially, when one presents an argument "Well, it makes no sense for God to do this..." my hypothetical would change the reference frame and under a "different" frame of reference it could make complete sense.

My dog has a different perspective from me, as does my wife and Stephen Hawking's. That's what makes life so wonderful.

Not trying to be glib, just pointing out we all see things differently and obvioulsdy the more different the being is, the more different the perspective.

This is my take on the bible god. He has no problem with killing people, his performance of getting the world to believe in him is poor by the standard I would set a god.

I shouldn't need faith to believe, the evidence should be crystal clear.

If I was inventing a god to gain control. I would invent one like all the other religions have done. From pointing to a tree and saying it's holy, to the sun, to a being no one can see.

I have a very logical train of thought and question everything.

 

[paulm50]

Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

This is too long for me now, the first part explains a lot.

The simple answer is, no one knows yet. It's cutting edge theory.

We have more to learn.

 

[stevevw]

My dog has a different perspective from me, as does my wife and Stephen Hawking's. That's what makes life so wonderful.

Not trying to be glib, just pointing out we all see things differently and obvioulsdy the more different the being is, the more different the perspective.

This is my take on the bible god. He has no problem with killing people, his performance of getting the world to believe in him is poor by the standard I would set a god.

I shouldn't need faith to believe, the evidence should be crystal clear.

If I was inventing a god to gain control. I would invent one like all the other religions have done. From pointing to a tree and saying it's holy, to the sun, to a being no one can see.

I have a very logical train of thought and question everything.

Its easy to blame God for everything we dont understand. But maybe what we experience is totally subject to the natural world we exist in. Some say that since the fall of mankind with sin we have brought the slow destruction of everything for what use to be perfect in paradise whatever that was. So now everything is deteriorating and so it is not Gods doing but just the reality in which we live.

I find the dark energy and matter very interesting. It is a mysterious force that has been used to account for the effects scientists see in our universe. According to relativity Einstein calculated that the universe should either slow down or continue to expand. He proposed that dark energy was working with gravity to keep everything in balance in the universe. He called this his cosmological constant. Without it all the galaxies would be either flying apart or smashing into each other. Just a minute change in this balance and everything would be chaos. It seems to have just the right balance for everything to stay in check. Some say that the universe is held together by God and that the mysterious force is God Himself. I guess we will never know.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him.
And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16-17

 

[paulm50]

Its easy to blame God for everything we dont understand.

I don't blame god for anything. I blame some men.

But maybe what we experience is totally subject to the natural world we exist in. Some say that since the fall of mankind with sin we have brought the slow destruction of everything for what use to be perfect in paradise whatever that was. So now everything is deteriorating and so it is not Gods doing but just the reality in which we live.

We are totally subject to the natural world and have been since we evolved out of it.
As for sin, what sin, the sin of being conceived, born, doing what's been programmed into to do and enjoy, like sex?
We are deteriorating because some bibles say "Go forth and multiply, and with the world over populated. Some clergy still insists on it.

I find the dark energy and matter very interesting. It is a mysterious force that has been used to account for the effects scientists see in our universe. According to relativity Einstein calculated that the universe should either slow down or continue to expand. He proposed that dark energy was working with gravity to keep everything in balance in the universe. He called this his cosmological constant. Without it all the galaxies would be either flying apart or smashing into each other. Just a minute change in this balance and everything would be chaos. It seems to have just the right balance for everything to stay in check. Some say that the universe is held together by God and that the mysterious force is God Himself. I guess we will never know.

Its easy to blame God for everything we don't understand. Could not resist that one.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him.
And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16-17

He may of created everything. What most are positive of. Is the bible doesn't have any information to help us find out. It just blames God for everything the people writing them didn't understand.

 

[stevevw]

I don't blame god for anything. I blame some men.
We are totally subject to the natural world and have been since we evolved out of it.
As for sin, what sin, the sin of being conceived, born, doing what's been programmed into to do and enjoy, like sex?
We are deteriorating because some bibles say "Go forth and multiply, and with the world over populated. Some clergy still insists on it.
Its easy to blame God for everything we don't understand. Could not resist that one.

good one. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything will lose energy and break down. The natural world and everything in it will eventually decay. The material world wears out and nothing lasts forever. Everything goes towards disorder and chaos. So evolution cannot create more order and complexity and this is what we are seeing over time. Scientists say that our universe will eventually expand to a point where everything freezes and all life will be destroyed.

So if everything is destroyed and finished and our universe is no longer suitable for life is that it. Is there nothing forever whatever that may be. Once the universe reaches that point of destruction there's no coming back. So what we see now and what the future generations will see will be it. Surely there is more to things than that. Whats the point of evolution creating a life that can ask the questions and ponder something beyond this life only to end up with nothing and a darkness that has nothing sitting there.

But we may not even get that far. The rate humans are going we may destroy the planet we are on now in the not to distant future. The way we are using it up is compounding any deterioration 10 fold. So what happens then we may only have a short time and then we've got to hope that the chance occurrence of life creating itself from non life has to somehow happen again somewhere.

But as there are so many things that need to be just right to sustain life that may not ever happen. We are destroying the perfect conditions we have for life ourselves by pollution the earth and destroying its natural resources. If evolution is true then its created a monster which is destroying the very things it needs to survive, which is what I thought evolution was all about. But what many dont acknowledge is that we also have a spiritual side. Sin can cause us to become evil and we can be selfish and greedy. We can destroy and if we dont see this then we cannot fix it.

He may of created everything. What most are positive of. Is the bible doesn't have any information to help us find out. It just blames God for everything the people writing them didn't understand.

To me God makes all the sense in this world. The amazing life and existence we see is more than just a matter of naturalistic processes creating themselves from nothing. We all know that existence is more than that and something cannot come from nothing. So we intuitively know that there is something at work beyond the material world.

But instead many would rather explain that away by giving chemicals and matter itself some creative powers to make things out of itself which is impossible. But then time is made to be a god and with it all things are possible. There is not proof for this but people would rather give that the benefit of the doubt rather than a creator which everything seems to point towards.