quick way to prove creation

[Eudaimonist]

-And by the way, it's gravity that causes most things to happen.

I don't know about gravity causing most things to happen, but this is a good example of what I mean by a "self-cause".

Nothing causes an entity to exert gravity except for the entity itself. The entity is that-which-causes the phenomenon we call gravity to exist in this case. It doesn't need to be kick-started into exerting gravity by another entity. The entity has this power in its own right.

And, so, there is no need to speculate about two different classes of entities, where one sort (the Prime Movers) cause the other sort (the moved) to do things. Everything is a "Prime Mover" (or just a Mover) in some respect, and so change does not need to be introduced by some special class of entity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dawiyd]

That is the natural progression of how we see things created in modern times as well as in the past in human history. Since the history of man, have we seen any less intellegent life creating more complex life?

What why should we? This isn't the way the natural world works.

No, what we see is that the life created is not more complex that the life it came from.

Right, and?

Have we seen computers made by themselves or by a non creative being?

Computers are not self replicating biological beings, don't be so disingenuous as to try compare the two.

Have we seen rocks create cars?

Eurgh, why should we be able to.

No. Whenever we see something, we naturally ask who or what created this. Even the smallest organism has a high level of complexity that can't be explained by evolution alone.

Actually it can, if you actually understand what evolution is, not just absurd parody of it that you seem to understand it as.

Humans can create things less complex than themselves but not more complex.

Eurgh...

Humans can't create other humans. Even as complex as some computers are, then don't exceed the complexity of humans that created them.

You haven't defined what qualifies humans as complex in regards to other things, furthermore I don't see where you are going with this.

They can't replace humans in function since they lack spirit, mind, conscience, intelligence, creativity, etc. Whatever they do is designed into them by their creator.

...

Furthermore, they have to be created in such a way so that they can carry out the intended functions in an atmosphere friendly to their composition and the functionality.

Or evolved to live and adapt in that environment...

Already explained above.Creativity implies directly an intelligence to coordinate, implement, produce, and utilize the surrounding environment to insure compatibility and functionality. There are other things I could add to that. It is not just making something, but all conditions must be satisfactorily for the creation to survive, exist, and function, which means that the probability of random chance is lessened.

Evolution isn't random chance...

Rain, snow, and fire being caused by nature is an oversimplification. Where does nature get its instructions from?

The laws of physics, why when I blow a bubble is it a sphere? Is it because I designed it to be, or god did, or is it because a sphere because the pressure is uniformly directed onto all surfaces in all directions?

Even a natural fire has a cause and effect. Even rain has a cause and effect; likewise snow. They just don't happen. The have causes. Nature has causes too. It just doesn't happen. That is absurd to anyone living today that uses their senses to explore their surroundings.

Wow, this is almost as bad ass saying the cause for lightning is Zeus.

That is really cute. The point is that they have a creator. There is an origin to them, just as there is an origin of nature and its elements such as snow, rain and natural fires. Surely if I asked you how that fire started, you wouldn't reply with it just happened and that there was no cause behind it. Even if there were no human intervention, there still is a cause such as a lightening strike or an unusual heatwave or wind that caused some chemicals to ignite.

Right a naturalistic cause...

Another cute one. The intelligence is designed into the reproductive tract of the chicken.The chicken was designed with all of its functions in place just like when you eat a Big Mac at McDonalds, the food goes down your digestive tract. We don't create digestive tracts in order for us to eat.

So do tell me, what was the appendix designed for?

The intelligent designer took care of that. How do you breathe? Do you consciously tell your self to breathe, even when you are sleep? Nope, because the creator made you equipped so that you could interface with the air that he also created for you to breathe.

Or a mechanism evolved to do it unconsciously...

The creator knew that if he gave you lungs too, that you would have a filter just in case someone lit a cigarette (also a creation) and you could have a chance to expel that bad air out of your system.

Right, thats why lung cancer is such a killer...

If that were true, then we should also expect the randomness of that random process to also change so that the egg may not come out any more or in some other pattern rather than a fairly scheduled and regulated frequency as it does. It is called a cycle. Guess what, that was also accounted for by the creator.

What on earth are yo on about? The allele mutation has nothing to do with the reproduction cycle timing.

A greater question is what causes these random mutations and processes? I don't agree with your assessment, but for the sake of argument, I just want to know. Or do you think that it just happened?

By toxins in the environment or molecular decay.

Because every chicken that is born normal has it. If it were random, there is a chance that a whole family of chickens wouldn't have it or would have some other system. Perhaps some of them wouldn't even lay eggs at all. There is a consistency that only makes sense unless it was intentionally designed to function that way just like computers are intentionally designed to function in a certain way. Imagine a computer randomly designed. There is something at work to ensure that the same design comes out every time. Again, it just doesn't happen.

Again, evolution isn't random.

Of course it is! That is why we can predict the outcome with some consistency or regularity. If not, we could not determine what would happen from one second to another. We could not develop formulas to explain phenomena if there wasn't some kind of intelligent design to insure a consistent outcome. Suppose that two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen sometimes producing water and at other times producing something else while under the same conditions. There is a creator that placed these laws so that we could have a predictable and observable outcome, given all things equal.

Uh, what?

But that is a fallacious argument. Blue is a concept and eating is a social concept as you are using it. We are talking about where life came from, which is a totally different category.

Right, and atheism can't explain it nor it has no need to.

I think that you know my point well.

Yes it's asinine.

Life only comes from living things--not dead things. There is no scientist that is going to probe a rock to find the origin of a cricket.

And why should they? What hypothesis postulates such a notion?

They are going to look at other live things instead. They are not going to look to an elephant to see if it came from a rock. So, why would you think that this is so?

Could you quote them where they said this or even alluded to it.

Don't give me an argument that is should be obvious that rocks and elephants are quite dissimilar that this is not reasonable. I am only speaking from a general perspective of the principles I am questioning from your perspective.

No you really arn't it appears.

Some things in nature may produce other things, but they are not thought out and created.

Thought is not a necessary perquisite to creation, your claim "Only creative things can create." is false.

Nature is not some independent thing. It consists of intricate parts that work independently in some cases and dependently in others. Even if I accepted your answer, then where did nature come from, and how do we account for the things that it does? Random??

No, why do you keep trying to shoe horn random in anywhere, if I thought you had the capacity I would go through some non-linear dynamics with you to show you that even what my appear as random actually has order.

If life came about naturally, then what caused this naturalness?

What a nonsensical question.

Don't tell me it just happened. It would be like telling me that water just happened and disregard what science has come to understand about the formation of water. It requires hydrogen and water combining under special conditions since we know that H and O can combine in other ways that won't produce water.

I have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, at srpt what else other than water can they form.

Not only must we have the correct elements, we must also have the correct conditions and a climate to support this combination as well. There are too many variables to have me to believe that this stuff just happened. There is definitely a purposed meaning to all of this, which requires an intelligent designer.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate the case at all, and shown a gross misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Take a box of matches. Empty them onto the table, and look at the pattern they form.

No matter how many times you repeat the experiment, chances are that they will never again fall into exactly the same pattern.

What creationists do is basically this: they point to the unlikelihood of the matches falling into exactly that first pattern, and then claim that this proves that they must have been arranged by a supernatural intelligence.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

So wait, these people don't believe in evolution? So you must believe that you are genetically identical to your mother, don't you?

 

[Rasta]

That does not disprove creation. Whoever created the system would have power over its existence, therefore determining its rules of operation and its characteristics.

Sounds like an unsupported opinion to me.

 

[peaceful soul]

[FONT=&quot]originally posted by dawiyd

What why should we? This isn't the way the natural world works.

That is one of the premises in Darwinian evolution--that simplistic life evolved into complex life. This is not true in today's world nor is there any record of this being the normal means of life as we know it throughout human history.

Right, and?

Had you not separated my statements, then you would have understood what I was saying. Perhaps you should make sure that you read it with context. You replied to my post quite quickly after I posted, which makes me wonder how much time did you spend to understand what I was saying.

Computers are not self replicating biological beings, don't be so disingenuous as to try compare the two.

Here is what I was responding to.

Whatever it is, it must be more intelligent than we are.
why?

Here is part of my response.

Whenever we see something, we naturally ask who or what created this.

I was talking about the fact that intelligence is behind creativity. Some design is implied when we see things like computers. Perhaps you should not be so quick to shoot down my responses. Just a thought.

Eurgh, why should we be able to.

Because rocks don't have the ability to create, therefore, we wouldn't expect a rocks to have intelligence to design. That is part of it. Darwinian evolution also has a premise that non life begets life. Rocks, as we know them, don't have the capacity to create other forms, whether living or non living. From what we can observe, creativity comes from beings with intelligence. It would behoove you to not try to separate my thoughts without keeping context to them.

Actually it can, if you actually understand what evolution is, not just absurd parody of it that you seem to understand it as.

Actually I am wondering what kind of evolution that you are thinking of. I am speaking of the general theory of evolution proposed by Darwin. My point is that the premise of simple living organisms evolving into more complex living organisms is not what we see in the natural world. Yes, we can see alterations within a species (micro evolution), but not a transition into another more complex form (macro evolution). The transitional aspect is just an hypothesis. It has no true evidence to support it.

Eurgh...

Yes, they can't create things beyond their finite understanding and reasoning since they themselves are finite. Just take a strand of DNA. The complexity of that alone is amazing. Just think about how all of the various parts of the human body are constructed and what is inside the tissues and muscles as well as the blood, etc. and you begin to understand what I mean. Man cannot even begin to dream of how to replicate the human body. Even an amoeba is more complex that once thought of. Intelligence beyond the human is necessary to construct a human. Natural processes (whatever they are) can't account for this complexity.

You haven't defined what qualifies humans as complex in regards to other things, furthermore I don't see where you are going with this.

I just explained a little of it above. Complexity has to do with the organization and structure of the body from single cells, DNA, to the autonomous nervous system, to the immune system, etc. I am also talking about the metaphysical aspects such as consciousness, spirit, mind, soul, morality, will, etc. I am talking about the complexity on the sub cellular level as well. There are so many things that have to go right for all of this to function together as well as function in the environment, which I would argue was designed for it as well. Not by some random chance or natural selection that these things happened. I also forgot to mention the ability to control and/or alter his environment almost at will within certain limitations, of course.

Or evolved to live and adapt in that environment...

That goes back to the premise that there was no cause necessary for these things and no intelligence behind these events, which is at the crux of the reason that I started to debate. I am not really interested in all of this other stuff that only explains what is here, which is the basis of evolution theory. Our environment does not just do something without something acting upon it to cause it to conform to that situation. Something also has to trigger that entity to know to respond to that environment in precisely that way in order to change. It is not enough to just say that things evolve and adapt. This also assumes that the environmental variables were stable long enough to allow this to happen. Evolution is predicated on mutations which we know today to have degenerating effects, not constructive ones. If anything, we should expect a species to degrade rather than upgrade.

Evolution isn't random chance...

Parts of its foundation are. The idea of more simple molecules forming more complex molecules such as proteins and amino acids that further supported more complex life forms is something that would happen by chance (infers randomness from the concept of probability) according to Darwin's theory. Maybe random is not the right word to explain what I am saying. Let's use arbitrary instead. The point is that this complexity came about without any design and allowed for higher forms of life and more complexity to be formed without a need for a cause. This is not something that we observe happening today without some cause and some intelligence orchestrating it. We don't just wait and hope that it happens, which is what chance dictates.

The laws of physics, why when I blow a bubble is it a sphere? Is it because I designed it to be, or god did, or is it because a sphere because the pressure is uniformly directed onto all surfaces in all directions?

Now then, where did the laws of physics come from? Are they also arbitrary? Why should there be some laws that govern things? Why not just random or arbitrary or chance? Why should the rain, snow and even the bubble behave with a high degree of consistency? Why not blow a bubble and it comes out square the next time? Why not blow and find out that it doesn't even expand on the third try? Ever thought of that? Also, what makes the pressure uniformly directed? Why should we expect such consistency? Perhaps, these things are governed by an creative being having the capacity to allow these things to exist on a set of rules that He has control over. Just maybe??

Wow, this is almost as bad ass saying the cause for lightning is Zeus.

Nice try, but we are not discussing Zeuss. I guess I will repeat what lead up to your response so that you can reevaluate your response.

Here it is.

Even a natural fire has a cause and effect. Even rain has a cause and effect; likewise snow. They just don't happen. They have causes. Nature has causes too. It just doesn't happen. That is absurd to anyone living today that uses their senses to explore their surroundings.

Would you say that it rains for no reason? No impact on the atmosphere causes the rain? Snow just happens? No temperature changes involved? No wind currents involved? No reason for the flakes to fall? No reason to expect snow flakes every time it snows??

Right a naturalistic cause...

Now we complete the circle again. What causes the naturalistic cause you are propagating? What causes the lightening, and what causes it to strike? What causes the chemicals to ignite? Why don't the chemicals ignite under any conditions? You have failed to answer. It is easy to say naturalistic causes, but you don't take into account that there seems to be something governing these causes. They are not just arbitrary or by chance. Something leads to them happening, and something before that causes the circumstances to the prior events. Changes in the patterns are not "just so" and that is the end of the argument.

Understand also that nature is not just one entity. It consists of smaller complex entities that sometimes trigger other things to happen and sometimes act independently. In your mind, I am sure that these entities just somehow know when to act and when not to act. The wind knows when to blown, the clouds know when to move and when to stay stationary. They know that when they get too heavy, that they must now release the moisture as rain drops. Nothing ever influences these things to behave in the manner that they do except nature, which you haven't explained how that works.

So do tell me, what was the appendix designed for?

I feel a trap question, but I will bite. The fact that scientist can't explain it's function is not in indictment that it has and/or had no function. This in no way refutes anything. That does not change the fact that a chicken lays an egg because the chicken is designed in that way. The chicken doesn't have to think about laying the egg no more than you have to tell yourself to breathe. What is responsible for an involuntary aspects of a system such as the reproductive system and the central nervous system? Is that an adaptation? Is it arbitrary? What is it?

Or a mechanism evolved to do it unconsciously...

Back to evolution. Why would make a mechanism evolve in such a manner? Better yet, how would a mechanism do that? Do you see any such evidence for that from human history? Do you see any intermediate stages right now or in the fossil records that would support this view? You can't escape the concept of cause.



to be continued.........................[/FONT]

 

[peaceful soul]

……………..continued
originally posted by dawiyd

Right, thats why lung cancer is such a killer...

But that is not what I was addressing. I am speaking of the complexity of lungs that act intricately with the rest of the respiratory system and yet are able to act as filters for the air.

What on earth are yo on about? The allele mutation has nothing to do with the reproduction cycle timing.

I misread. I am not talking about an allele. I meant to say that the chicken has the ability to lay eggs and that process is exclusive to a chicken and does not change over time to something else such as a goat adapting that same capacity. The point that I was trying to make is that the cycle is a designed feature of the chicken. We should expect it to be consistent with the chicken and not later cease to be a part of the chicken's design.

By toxins in the environment or molecular decay.

Now what causes decay and mutations? Are the arbitrary? By chance? Random?

Again, evolution isn't random.

There is a bit of truth to that but the underlying premise makes it so as I explained somewhere above. The fact that the early sophistication of life supposedly started by some organic molecules collecting themselves in such an arrangement as to create cells and then more complex species. Since such arrangements had no underlying pattern, this was by chance and does lend to some sort of randomness. According to evolution, there is no such thing as an intentional creative being involved; therefore, it is quasi random at best. If you did an experiment by placing molecules of amino acids in a dish and having them to form proteins and then cells, you should not expect any successful evolving to occur. Why? Because there is some pattern to the formation necessary to produce cells from amino acids.

Uh, what?

The argument was that the chicken's capacity to lay an egg was not intentional. I said that it was; otherwise this could change over time according to evolution. We could not count on a specific outcome over time since evolution would suggest that this may change. Intelligent design would account for the consistency that we see.

Right, and atheism can't explain it nor it has no need to.

That is rather silly to say. It does matter because your theory needs a foundation to actually have any real meaning. Just theorizing how already existing material came to life is not enough. Knowing where the materials came from and why they were able to generate life is very important because that would solidify your theory and could be used right now by scientist to make further advances in science. Perhaps, atheist could then prove that there is no god and rejoice for eternity.

Yes it's asinine.

Thanks. I may take this a compliment.

And why should they? What hypothesis postulates such a notion?

Are you following my thought process? Life comes from the living--not the dead. What part of that did you not understand? Can you find me any scientist with good rational thought that would look for life in dead or non living material?

Could you quote them where they said this or even alluded to it.

Do I really need to quote someone for this? You can't be serious! Will a scientist expect to find life in a rock? Do they expect to take substance from a rock and create life?

No you really arn't it appears.

How about answering the question.

So then, your claim "Only creative things can create." was false.

There is difference between create and produce. Notice that I underlined the word produce in the original post. I will post it again for convenience.

Some things in nature may produce other things, but they are not thought out and created.

The use of create is an intentional design of something. Production is a consequence of some events. I was trying to make sure that distinction was noticed. That is why I underlined it.

No, why do you keep trying to shoe horn random in anywhere, if I thought you had the capacity I would go through some non-linear dynamics with you to show you that even what my appear as random actually has order.

Random in my context is something that does not have a consistent pattern or rule to follow. The rules may differ depending upon the circumstance and can't be trusted to yield consistent results if repeated many times.

What makes you think that I don't have the capacity? Mighty presumptuous on your part. Your first obstacle is to make sure that you understand what I a saying. One you clear that hurdle, then perhaps you can make a better evaluation.

What a nonsensical question.

What is nonsensical is your flippant attitude. How about trying to answer the question. You are calling nature a entity and I wanted to know where that entity comes from. What gives it its characteristics. I will repeat the question for you.

If life came about naturally, then what caused this naturalness?

Naturalness is some kind of state; so, what is responsible for this state? Why does it have to be? Aren't there rules that it follows? In other words, what gives the characteristics of naturalness? What is the cause behind this state of existence? Understanding this would be essential to giving credence to evolution theory because it is important to know where those substances that started life came from and how they function.

I have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, at srpt what else other than water can they form.

This is what I said.

It requires hydrogen and water combining under special conditions since we know that H and O can combine in other ways that won't produce water.

I made as mistake and said water instead of oxygen. I will go back and correct that. OOPS! Noticed that the last sentence is speaking not of water, but of the combination of H and O. I didn't say that the ration was 2 to 1. We can have H202 and OH-, for example.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate the case at all, and shown a gross misunderstanding of evolution.

I don't think that misunderstand the principles of Darwinian evolution. It is your failure to understand what I presented. That may be in part to my not defining certain terms, but most of it is your own fault for being so hasty to respond. It wasn't but a few minutes between my post and your reply. I don't think that you gave yourself enough time to absorb much. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and just see what your next response will be like before I form an overall opinion on your objectives.

 

[peaceful soul]

Take a box of matches. Empty them onto the table, and look at the pattern they form.

No matter how many times you repeat the experiment, chances are that they will never again fall into exactly the same pattern.

What creationists do is basically this: they point to the unlikelihood of the matches falling into exactly that first pattern, and then claim that this proves that they must have been arranged by a supernatural intelligence.

That is not the proof, but it can be part of a proof. There is quite a difference in your analogy since there is someone doing the placement. Evolution likes to suggest that it is "just so" because "it is" or that nature is responsible. Nature does not just happen either.

 

[peaceful soul]

Sounds like an unsupported opinion to me.

In your world everything is an opinion. Is there anything that isn't an opinion that doesn't support your position?

 

[Rasta]

In your world everything is an opinion.

No. Only opinions are opinions. Facts are not opinions.

Is there anything that isn't an opinion that doesn't support your position?

My position on what? On creationism? No. Since my position is defined by the facts of reality as we know it.

 

[Rasta]

That is one of the premises in Darwinian evolution--that simplistic life evolved into complex life. This is not true in today's world nor is there any record of this being the normal means of life as we know it throughout human history.

Human history = roughly 5,000 years. The earth has been around for 4.5 BILLION years. It should not be a surprise that 5,000 years is not an accurate time table to judge what changes have happened in the last 10 million years or so.

 

[peaceful soul]

Human history = roughly 5,000 years. The earth has been around for 4.5 BILLION years. It should not be a surprise that 5,000 years is not an accurate time table to judge what changes have happened in the last 10 million years or so.

The fact is that we don't know the age of the earth, and even if we did weI would think that we should still be able to see some progress in evolution taking place. Evolution does not have a specific time frame anyways as far as I am aware. When did the evolution process start? What is considered a long enough time for the process to show noticeable changes in a species?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The fact is that we don't know the age of the earth

Yes we do. As a matter of fact, we can determine the age of the world through various independent methods, all of which point to an age of approximately 4.54 billion years.

I would think that we should still be able to see some progress in evolution taking place. Evolution does not have a specific time frame anyways as far as I am aware. When did the evolution process start? What is considered a long enough time for the process to show noticeable changes in a species?

1. Evolution is not an aimed process, nor does it contain a notion of "progress" in the way that you seem to think. It's all about adapting to environmental conditions. Take sickle-cell anemia, for example: it's a rather nasty genetic defect, but being a recessive carrier makes you immune to malaria - as a result, you'll find an outstanding number of cases of sickle-cell anemia in regions that are plagued by malaria, or used to be plagued by the same.
2. Evolution started the moment the first monocellular organisms started to compete for resources (read: food).
3. We do see some progress in evolution. Just looking at the fossil record provides a very thorough picture of species that have evolved in several different directions. In fact, the very concept of the "species" is but a freeze frame picture of a specific class of organisms at a specific point in time. The ancestors of whales, for example, were apparently land-dwelling mammals - the specific gaps in the fossil record have recently been filled by discoveries in modern-day Pakistan.
4. The most diverse evolutionary changes happen among the most diverse class of life: bacteria. Ever heard about bacteria that develop immunity against anti-biotics? That's an evolutionary process par excellance.

 

[Legion.As.One]

While the earth as one, has a beginning and an end, what the earth is made of is far far older and possibly no end.

I don't know about gravity causing most things to happen, but this is a good example of what I mean by a "self-cause".

Nothing causes an entity to exert gravity except for the entity itself. The entity is that-which-causes the phenomenon we call gravity to exist in this case. It doesn't need to be kick-started into exerting gravity by another entity. The entity has this power in its own right.

And, so, there is no need to speculate about two different classes of entities, where one sort (the Prime Movers) cause the other sort (the moved) to do things. Everything is a "Prime Mover" (or just a Mover) in some respect, and so change does not need to be introduced by some special class of entity.

Perhaps, it is not the gravity which is exerted. Perhaps gravity is another dimension and the galaxies have simply formed where gravity is? Or maybe its vice versa. Like water a drop of rain flowing to the ocean.

I think it is the smallest single-celled organisms that are most evolved. While they aren't immune to everything, did they not begin life on this planet? But then again, who are we to judge the most evolved species?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

While the earth as one, has a beginning and an end, what the earth is made of is far far older and possibly no end.



Perhaps, it is not the gravity which is exerted. Perhaps gravity is another dimension and the galaxies have simply formed where gravity is? Or maybe its vice versa. Like water a drop of rain flowing to the ocean.

I think it is the smallest single-celled organisms that are most evolved. While they aren't immune to everything, did they not begin life on this planet? But then again, who are we to judge the most evolved species?

There really is no such thing as a least or most evolved species in biology, there are only successful and less successful ones. Crocodiles, for example, haven't had any major changes in at least 200 million years because they are already almost perfectly adapted to their environment, but that doesn't mean they are "less evolved" than any of the younger species.

The same goes for bacteria - compared to humans, they are extremely simple organisms, but they have been around for much longer than we have already, and they will not go away anytime soon.

 

[Jpark]

One way to deny creation is to say that the universe is ethernal, always existed.
If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.
So here it is:
If there was an infinite amount of time before now, would we ever arrive at this moment?
No, we never would had arrive at this moment.
So time MUST have began sometime.
In the last 100 years scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding and began at a single point.
This is know as the big bang theory.

God is not restricted [confined] to the laws of physics. God possesses the ability to transcend physical confinements (energy, matter, time, plane, reality, space) of our world. (Exodus 19:18; Exodus 24:10; 2 Chronicles 6:18; Nehemiah 2:18; Job 34:14-15; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 6:4; Jeremiah 33:3; Ezekiel 1:4; Ezekiel 1:26-28; Ezekiel 28:14; Revelation 4:5; Revelation 15:8) For God is Spirit (John 4:24) and the Spirit is the Creator of life. (Job 33:4; Job 34:14-15)

So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.

Time is a man made construct. It is more appropriate to say in the beginning of creation, God created the heavens and the earth rather than in the beginning of time, God created the heavens and the earth.

A question you may ask is this: since time had a beginning, doesn't that mean that GOD didn't exist forever either?
No, it doesn't. Prior to the creation, God existed beyond matter and beyond time.
He was just there. All of his time prior to creation can be compressed into a single moment, because nothing happened.

God was. A very good answer.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

God did it was an answer. Similar to THor makes thunder. Crickets came from a man who ate the fruit of eterenal life but not of youth and aged to and shrank till he was a cricket. Foxes are spirits who show up and trick you etc...

All are answers none are based on any sort of real evidence.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by ranmaonehalf

God did it was an answer. Similar to THor makes thunder. Crickets came from a man who ate the fruit of eterenal life but not of youth and aged to and shrank till he was a cricket. Foxes are spirits who show up and trick you etc...

I see evolutionist doing the same, but instead of using God as an explanation, they use nature, which they have yet explain how it works to select which organisms will survive and how genes are influenced by it to behave as they do.

I think that you are assuming that since there was no other reasonable explanations for religious people to make, they invented god to cure the problem. Is that your angle? If it is, then you would be wrong, at least from a Christian perspective. If you are thinking anything else along those lines, count yourself wrong as well. Christians have reason to believe that there is more than a physical universe and sense the spiritual realm as reality. Since we understand that God is spirit, He is mainly invisible to the eye unless He interfaces with His creation in some way, whether through miracles or in the person of Jesus. It is the lack of belief of the spiritual realm that accounts for most secularists misunderstanding of the physical universe. They think that the explanation for life and all existence depends upon what they discern with their senses in physical terms; therefore, they are naturally mislead in their beliefs and understandings.

Something to think about: Just because some people have made foxes to be spirits and believe that Thor created thunder, that does not disprove that God exists. From a Christian perspective, those things are not true, yet God exists. If you are not careful, you will create yourself a fallacy of believing that since some things in a category aren't true, then none of them are true.

All are answers none are based on any sort of real evidence.

I suppose that evolution is by default? Or is there some other explanation? Evidence in terms of science is not the only possibility for evidence there is. You should note that. There is a non physical realm to be accounted for unless you believe that your mind and conscience are physical. Just allow for their being unseen realities beyond air and gravity.

If you are depending upon science as your proof, then you fail since evolution itself only attempts to explain things after life has started. It does not readily explain what happened before. It does not answer where life came from and where the material that makes up the universe came from either. Creationism explains it as being from God. At least Christians and some other religious people have a reasonable explanation for the origin of everything. Just because you can't measure God in a test tube is no reason to dismiss God as reality altogether. There is no need for science to prove God since God is not a part of creation. What I am saying is that evidence of God is not scientific; therefore, science can't measure God and analyze Him like scientist do with aspects of genetics in trying to prove evolution.

Evolution does not necessarily have a lot of proof--at least as Darwin presented it. Darwin's presentation was based upon his philosophical perspective with a touch of science to complement it. Darwin's theory is more philosophical than it is scientific. With evolution, there are all kinds of explanations that can be created to fit the data. That is one of the flaws with it--it is vague enough to allow for manipulation. I suppose that evolutionist call this inference, but I call it "retrofitting" because some of the data only fits by correlating it to known science. Transitional forms are touted as proof, but there is at least one other reason for some of the forms that are believed as transitional. The most logical reason would be it was designed that way and not by chance or arbitrariness. I look at the theory in general as a sort of "retrofitting" since the outcome is known and the theory can be adjusted to fit known data so that the explanation looks credible. Maybe some of it is credible, but that doesn't prove that the theory itself is credible.

What I am saying in short is that evolution has many holes in it and depends upon explanations that in some cases, lack evidence; so, many assumptions are made for the data to fit, which I call retrofitting. Secularist do not have a world view of there being something beyond the physical--namely God--who created everything with design and purpose. They don't take into account that not everything is physical. Not everything is grounded in the natural; for there is a supernatural realm that plays a part in creation and the world in general. To me, this is the major flaw in there premise for the belief in Darwinian evolution. I realize that evolution does exist, specifically with live organisms since is would make sense since living things are constantly changing, especially at the cellular level. What I object to is the idea that evolution occurs across species whereby apes and humans can have a common ancestor. Man and ape are similar because they were created to be similar. There are differences between apes and man that evolution can't readily explain. Examples are mind, conscience, spirit, soul, morality and ethics. These things don't evolve and have no physical existence.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Jane_the_Bane

Yes we do. As a matter of fact, we can determine the age of the world through various independent methods, all of which point to an age of approximately 4.54 billion years.

That presumes that the earth has been constant throughout its existence. This says nothing for cataclysmic events such as floods, ice age, and global warming effects. Such events would alter the ability to date the earth. It is more accurate to date things that have occurred closer to the present than for supposedly billions of years. That is asking too much of science, if you ask me. So, the answer is that we don't know. Any conclusion should be prefaced with uncertainty.

1. Evolution is not an aimed process, nor does it contain a notion of "progress" in the way that you seem to think. It's all about adapting to environmental conditions. Take sickle-cell anemia, for example: it's a rather nasty genetic defect, but being a recessive carrier makes you immune to malaria - as a result, you'll find an outstanding number of cases of sickle-cell anemia in regions that are plagued by malaria, or used to be plagued by the same.

I agree that evolution as Darwin saw it is not an aimed progress since it is not based upon a design; yet its underlings are that it follows some kind of pattern that conforms to nature and genetics, although in an arbitrary manner.

If evolution was all about adaptation, then the second part of Darwin's theory (macro evolution) has no basis. Species change due to surroundings is something that science can prove rather easily. That is not a big deal. It is expected with living things since they change to environmental conditions and are growing constantly, even at the cellular level. Cells are systems of themselves. They are like little communities of living matter that exchange material internally and externally that aid in their changes. When cells mutate, they also can cause change at the macro level--the entire body, but they don't cause a species to branch off and form a totally different species. We see that the species remains, but with changes.The big deal is the idea that evolution continues above the species level. Sickle-cell anemia is due to a cell mutation. Mutations almost always cause negative adaptations and degrade genetic material. Darwinian evolution proposes that somehow genetic data is added that improves the species. Sickle-cell also shortens ones life, which is not a good trait of an evolution model. It only shows that change occurs within a species.

2. Evolution started the moment the first monocellular organisms started to compete for resources (read: food).

How would you know that? Is there a way to scientifically verify this? How would an organism know to compete for resources without some kind of guidance to know its role? How would the first organism know that it needs to survive or that it should strive to survive?

3. We do see some progress in evolution. Just looking at the fossil record provides a very thorough picture of species that have evolved in several different directions. In fact, the very concept of the "species" is but a freeze frame picture of a specific class of organisms at a specific point in time. The ancestors of whales, for example, were apparently land-dwelling mammals - the specific gaps in the fossil record have recently been filled by discoveries in modern-day Pakistan.

The fossil record is not a complete means to understand evolution. What I see is certain findings used to defend it--not necessarily do I believe that they in fact do support evolution. Alleged transitional forms may not in fact, be transitional forms, but species of their own that have characteristics of other known species. Have you ever considered that they were designed that way? Much of the idea of transitional forms is retrofitting--much like with the dinosaurs. I am not arguing that dinosaurs existed or not; rather, I would argue if they existed in the way that is reported by science. Lots of theories try to explain them just like with evolution. None of them are without their flaws and huge assumptions.

I do notice that evolutionist do define things rather vaguely to create a strong case for it. Species is spoken of loosely. However you try to define species, there is a problem when equating micro cellular organisms with humans in the evolution chain. Humans have vertebrae. I am not sure how natural selection and genetics caused vertebrae to develop and natural selection deciding that humans would be be best fitted with them to survive.

4. The most diverse evolutionary changes happen among the most diverse class of life: bacteria. Ever heard about bacteria that develop immunity against anti-biotics? That's an evolutionary process par excellance.

I am not arguing against evolution as a change in an organism, but I object to speciation because of evolution. I am speaking of evolution in a very generic sense and not from Darwins, neoDarwins, and others of this kind. There is no evidence connected to what some call macro evolution. I think the problem in saying "evolution" is that it is used in different contexts. Also, evolutionists don't see a difference in evolution within species and above species since species can be defined loosely and that micro evolution is just a stage into macro evolution. So, evolution is just evolution, regardless, IMO.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I see evolutionist doing the same, but instead of using God as an explanation, they use nature, which they have yet explain how it works to select which organisms will survive and how genes are influenced by it to behave as they do.

Fail.