quick way to prove creation

[peaceful soul]

Fail.

No one liners here. If you are going to comment, then be prepared to explain. No one is going to chase after you to get an explanation.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

"And God said . . . . .etc . . etc"
We get this of course, from the Bible.
So, according to humans, "God said . . . . etc . . etc"
So, according to humans, apparently God said many things, but interestingly, none of it included what a God was.
This was apparently, already known.
By whom?
Humans of course.
So who told them?
Well, maybe God "himself", but unfortunately this is not recorded.
If he did or he didn't, we are left with the rather disquieting thought, that all the pagan Gods prior to Christianity, who were all completely silent, could neither have told humanity of God's existence either.
This leaves us with only one possible solution, that the unrecorded evidence of God informing us of his existence, occurred AFTER we as humans, had already invented the concept of Gods!!!!!!!!!!!!

Assuming this premise to be true, then something (God) was created BEFORE it's (God) apparent existence was revealed.

Likewise, with evolution, physics, chemistry, etc, etc, where assumptions are made, based upon the evidence to hand, and further insight is sought to explain phenomina, ad apparently, infinitum.
But hold on!!!
This is NOT likewise.
God is, and no further investigation is required. One just has to, BELIEVE.

Ok then, well I just BELIEVE that EVERYTHING in the universe, is an evolutionary byproduct of it's ability to exist at that moment in time, this would of course, include an originating singularity, and it's formative development within non-existence, which for a microminimal nanosecond, was created by the existence of non-existence.
NOTHING IS, THEREFORE I AM.

There you go. No further investigation is required.
One just has to, BELIEVE.
A belief, unlike the concept of God, that is based upon the evidence to hand, that ALL of existence is a NATURAL byproduct of ALL of NON-EXISTENCE.
What is CREATED, is purely and simply the natural byproduct of WHAT CAN BE, or if you prefer, IF I CAN BE, THEREFORE I AM.

EVERYTHING has to have the ability to exist, and in every reasonable respect, it does so, but only of course, within it's ability to coexist within creation itself. Otherwise, is discarded.

This would therefore explain why the concept of God exists, and is the very evidence itself of why it has to do so, and resultantly also, the evidence of it's falsidity. The only problem to date, is that natural evolution has not yet attained the discarded state with this concept.

Existence as we see it to be, does not need a manufactured concept for it to exist, neither does non-existence, which leaves us in the unenviable position of trying to explain how something (God) can exist in non-existence BEFORE it is created, ie. I AM BEFORE I AM.

A far more intellectual concept worthy of acceptance would be: I AM BECAUSE I WAS NOT, and unfortunately, any concept of God, does not fit into that philosophy.

 

[Anon Sequitur]

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.

Ok fair enough.

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.

This is true.

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.

Once again, I do not dispute this.

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

The assertion the creation was by God is a *gasp* dare I say it? Non sequitur?

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.

I see. So you're allowing yourself the luxury of postulating an already existing infitinetly complex diety, to solve the regression of the first cause? What impeccable logic... Dear me, why don't you just apply Ocham's Razor, remove the superfluous supernatural, and make of a job of it by simply postulating the existence of life as we it. Surely that might accomplish something...

 

[Rasta]

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.

How do you know this is true?

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.

It is. That is why the leading scientists say approximately 4.5 BILLION years. Are you consistent with this methodology? Like with belief in god? Or do you use double standards as they suit your needs?

If evolution was all about adaptation, then the second part of Darwin's theory (macro evolution) has no basis.

Please tell me your understanding of how macro and micro evolution differ dynamicly.

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.

Please define "the species level", and source the relavent scientific data that supports your claim.

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.

Why do human beings have a tail bone?

The fossil record is not a complete means to understand evolution.

Do you have a more reliable, more informative resource that you use?

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.

Do you have any expertise in the field?

Have you ever considered that they were designed that way?

What does that mean?

Much of the idea of transitional forms is retrofitting--much like with the dinosaurs.

Can you give an example of what you are speaking of?

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.

Please list the flaws and huge assumptions that you have found in your studies that you find relevant to this discussion.

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.

Perhaps you should read up on it. There is a wealth of information if you are actually curious to learn.

I am not arguing against evolution as a change in an organism, but I object to speciation because of evolution.

Why?

There is no evidence connected to what some call macro evolution.

Wrong. There is loads of evidence. You could easily find it, the thing is, you have to actually look first.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Rasta

How do you know this is true?

I am posing a possibility. I am not asserting that it happens (although I do believe it to be true). If catastrophic events happen, they can cause problems in dating methods by altering the rates of fossilization, which may be great enough to dramatically distort the dating. That is what I am trying to point out.

It is. That is why the leading scientists say approximately 4.5 BILLION years. Are you consistent with this methodology? Like with belief in god? Or do you use double standards as they suit your needs?

Let's not try to be rhetorical. That does not gain you any brownie points. My belief in God has nothing to do with this at this point. I am not assuming that the earth's environment has been constant; therefore, I am allowing for cataclysms and environmental changes to affect calculations.

Please tell me your understanding of how macro and micro evolution differ dynamicly.

What is classified as micro evolution is somewhat of a misnomer. The correct word would be variation. Evolution in the most general sense means a change, which no one in their right mind would argue that it doesn't happen with living organisms since we know through scientific investigation that living cells are constantly changing and can allow for changes in organisms above the cellular level, but not outside of the species. My objection is the idea that this variation on a micro level (among organisms of the same kind/species) eventually produces new organisms outside of this limited niche that I call a species. In other words, humans and apes didn't originate by some cellular processes involving some common ancestor. Organisms produce after their kind, which is certainly a scientific observation. The evolutionist counter claim is that it takes such a long time to happen that we can't detect it in real time. There is no scientific support for that either. It is a postulate made to fit the data.

Macro evolution is seen as just a continuation of micro evolution. At some point, the small changes will lead to major changes that cross the boundary of a particular kind/species. That is used in the human-ape common ancestry postulate. That is also used in other so-called transitional states including the dinosaur-to-bird and the land-to-water transitions. Basically all of the seemingly small steps in change ultimately lead to large scale diversity in the animal and plant kingdom.

Please define "the species level", and source the relavent scientific data that supports your claim.

It would be any class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name that are capable of breeding to produce after their own kind. Humans would then be a species and apes another. Therefore, apes and humans would not belong to the same species; consequently, evolutionary principles would not apply to them. Changes among apes and humans would have nothing in common.

I am aware that an evolutionist will define the term species in a manner vague enough to allow for apes and humans to fit into the same niche and call it transitional or speciation.

Why do human beings have a tail bone?

Because it serves as an attachment point for certain muscles and offers stability in walking, sitting, and other activities such as dancing and running. It also aids is in discharging feces out of the body. I know that you would like to tell me that this is some leftover part from a transitional form, but that would not be correct, at least according to some scientist. This is one of the main issues that I have with evolutionary claims. It is not too difficult to take the above example and retrofit data to say that the tail bone was an evolutionary process. You don't need any science to make that assertion. In some cases, science can't corroborate it anyways, yet an evolutionist can appear to make a great convincing claim. The big pitfall of an evolutionist is that he or she starts off with the a priori that science must be able to explain all naturalistic phenomena and that supernatural aspects are not an alternative explanation for the materialistic world. The way that science is defined by an evolutionist takes away the possibility of a non material explanation from explaining life and creation.

Do you have a more reliable, more informative resource that you use?

What kind of source are you looking for? I don't understand your question. Are you talking about an alternative to evolutionary explanations or something to back up my position?

Do you have any expertise in the field?

No, but I can see the problem in the model. As I alluded to above, the data can be retrofitted to describe a process as evolutionary on the basis of nonscientific means. For example, the transitional forms are called transitional not because they have been scientifically observed that way, but on the basis of how well they seem to show structural correlations between two forms. The bird-to-dinosaur is a good example. Wings correlate to arms. Then feathers or the lack of feathers can then be interpreted to fit whatever the evolutionist is trying to explain.

What does that mean?

A designer was involved and created the form independent of other forms. Consequently, commonality or correlation would not be the grounds to support an evolutionary model.

Can you give an example of what you are speaking of?

I have already touched upon some of them.

Please list the flaws and huge assumptions that you have found in your studies that you find relevant to this discussion.

Revision and retrofitting things to conform to the theory is what I observe. That is not scientific, but guessing in a arbitrary fashion.

Perhaps you should read up on it. There is a wealth of information if you are actually curious to learn.

I have been reading more recently. That is why I speak. I know that there is a lot of info, but how much of it is not just retrofitting. How much of it can be tested in a lab and can be shown to have real life implications?

Why?

I think that I have already covered that ground. Evolution means change; so, living things do change. sometimes it is to survive in a different environment than normal and other times it maybe because of diseases. Variations are normal and provable, but not genetic mutations causing changes in DNA to evolve new creatures outside of a specific kind. Mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of function--not an increase in function. Mutations overwhelmingly cause more harm than good. Even good mutations have negative effects by shortening the lifespan of the affected organism. Humans always produce other humans and likewise with all other living organisms.

Wrong. There is loads of evidence. You could easily find it, the thing is, you have to actually look first.

I chose the wrong word. I shouldn't say that there is no evidence; rather, I should say that there is no evidence that would support a complete model for evolution. Some parts of the model break down on fundamental levels. We know that life begets life. Scientist can't come up with a scenario where non life causes life. Abiogenisis is lacking in understanding the origin of life. Science hasn't been able to adequately demonstrate that it works. It is merely speculation at this point. Transitional forms are just findings in the animal record to purport an evolutionary change occurred. Science has not demonstrated that this is the case. The assumption is that these forms must have a common ancestor, therefore, these intermediate forms are he source for the transition. It is a philosophical approach wrapped in a cloak of science that makes it more scientific than it is philosophical. That is how I see the evolutionary theory.

 

[Legion.As.One]

And about here I'll create a random question:

If before the Bing Bang (really a big expansion), there was no thing. No dimensions of time or space. No thing. Chaos and order, in one big but small thing of nothingness. How can "god" exist, if there was no place for it to exist?

 

[Eudaimonist]

And about here I'll create a random question:

If before the Bing Bang (really a big expansion), there was no thing. No dimensions of time or space. No thing. Chaos and order, in one big but small thing of nothingness. How can "god" exist, if there was no place for it to exist?

That's an excellent question. However, I imagine that Christians will either deny that there was "no thing" "before" the "Big Bang", or they will insist that God is immaterial and doesn't occupy any "place".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Legion.As.One]

Many perhaps would say he is a spiritual being. But then again, if thought is human imagination - spirituality is an expanded personal veiw/thought/feeling. It is just another "thing".
As I said earlier, there is nowhere to exist as a spiritual or physical entity/ "thing". There was no "thing", and unless people try to argue that a "god" was still there, they just called their "god" and entire belief system "nothing".
Slightly confusing. But at least I understand myself.

If "god" doesn't exist materially how can such a thing be sentient, let alone communicate with people? What is "god" then. A "thing" such as time or matter? How could such a thing have such power, as this "god" surely would have?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If "god" doesn't exist materially how can such a thing be sentient, let alone communicate with people?

Sure, and consider this. If God exists outside of time as something eternal, meaning timeless, how can God think, since thinking is an activity that takes place in time? Is God a statue?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Legion.As.One]

Hahah. You are very right. I do wonder. A true statue neither moves nor talks nor thinks. Is "god" a timeless statue in the eyes of his unknowing followers? That is something I can't and won't endeavor to answer.

 

[durangodawood]

You all realize that this thread is a perfect example of the the creator who withdraws completely from creation, right?
.
.
.

 

[Rasta]

I am posing a possibility. I am not asserting that it happens (although I do believe it to be true). If catastrophic events happen, they can cause problems in dating methods by altering the rates of fossilization, which may be great enough to dramatically distort the dating. That is what I am trying to point out.

So you don't know, but you believe despite not knowing? Interesting assertion.

Let's not try to be rhetorical. That does not gain you any brownie points. My belief in God has nothing to do with this at this point. I am not assuming that the earth's environment has been constant; therefore, I am allowing for cataclysms and environmental changes to affect calculations.

So you are not consistent. Then you have no grounds to make that assertion.

My objection is the idea that this variation on a micro level (among organisms of the same kind/species) eventually produces new organisms outside of this limited niche that I call a species. In other words, humans and apes didn't originate by some cellular processes involving some common ancestor.

How do you know this? Is this another one of thoes things that you don't know but believe anyways? Do you think dogs and foxes shared a common ancestor?

Organisms produce after their kind, which is certainly a scientific observation. The evolutionist counter claim is that it takes such a long time to happen that we can't detect it in real time. There is no scientific support for that either. It is a postulate made to fit the data.

Actually there is a LOT of scientific support. It's rather simple too. Things that exist now did not exist 1,000,000 years ago.

Macro evolution is seen as just a continuation of micro evolution.

Exactly, the only difference is the amount of time.

It would be any class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name that are capable of breeding to produce after their own kind.

That is the definition of species. What is a "species level"?

I am aware that an evolutionist will define the term species in a manner vague enough to allow for apes and humans to fit into the same niche and call it transitional or speciation.

But do you know why this is done?

Because it serves as an attachment point for certain muscles and offers stability in walking, sitting, and other activities such as dancing and running. It also aids is in discharging feces out of the body. I know that you would like to tell me that this is some leftover part from a transitional form, but that would not be correct, at least according to some scientist.

Which scientist says that?

This is one of the main issues that I have with evolutionary claims. It is not too difficult to take the above example and retrofit data to say that the tail bone was an evolutionary process.

Because it makes sence.

The big pitfall of an evolutionist is that he or she starts off with the a priori that science must be able to explain all naturalistic phenomena and that supernatural aspects are not an alternative explanation for the materialistic world.

Do you know why this is?

The way that science is defined by an evolutionist takes away the possibility of a non material explanation from explaining life and creation.

This is how science is defined by scientists. The reason for this is because we can't comment on boggy men or gnomes or elves taking an active role in controlling gravity or creating us thinking apes, because there is no evidence to observe.

What kind of source are you looking for? I don't understand your question. Are you talking about an alternative to evolutionary explanations or something to back up my position?

A more reliable source than the fossile record. If you are going to critisize our only means to investigate the changes that organizms go through over time, you better have a more reliable source for data.

No, but I can see the problem in the model. As I alluded to above, the data can be retrofitted to describe a process as evolutionary on the basis of nonscientific means. For example, the transitional forms are called transitional not because they have been scientifically observed that way, but on the basis of how well they seem to show structural correlations between two forms. The bird-to-dinosaur is a good example. Wings correlate to arms. Then feathers or the lack of feathers can then be interpreted to fit whatever the evolutionist is trying to explain.

Ok, so why should I listen to you, when you clearly don't understand the reason why sceintific, objective evaluation is reliable and the most trustworthy system we dumb apes have?

A designer was involved and created the form independent of other forms. Consequently, commonality or correlation would not be the grounds to support an evolutionary model.

What's a designer? How do designers create stuff?

Revision and retrofitting things to conform to the theory is what I observe. That is not scientific, but guessing in a arbitrary fashion.

If you say that new theories displacing old theories based on physical evidence is not scientific, then I say you have absolutely no understanding of science.

I have been reading more recently. That is why I speak. I know that there is a lot of info, but how much of it is not just retrofitting. How much of it can be tested in a lab and can be shown to have real life implications?

If you have not yet been in a lab to investigate for yourself, that would be a place to start.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Nope. You have to prove two things:

1. That universe had a beginning, and
2. That beginning had a cause.

As it turns out, neither are proven. Or even evidenced, for that matter.

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.

Sure we would have: there would have been an infinite amount of time before this moment.

You are also misusing the concept of 'infinity': it is not a number that can be ascribed 'amounts'. Saying the universe didn't have a beginning tells us nothing about how much time has been experienced by things in the universe. The Kalam argument assumes that time is progressive: to be at this point in time, we must have progressed through all preceding moments of time. But, because there's an infinite amount of them, we can never do it! Right?

Wrong. You can't do it finitely. You can't get to infinity without involving another infinity somehow: you can't count to infinity with a finite number of finite steps. An infinite number of finite steps would work, as would a finite number of infinitely large steps.

If the universe didn't have a beginning, then we have an infinite amount of time to traverse an infinite duration and arrive at our specific point in time. Where, exactly, is the problem? It is well-known that infinities are more than just 'the largest number'. Infinities in mathematics can lead to finite results, as we find in the analysis of 'eternal' time.

Basically, you're misusing the concept of infinity.

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.

It has been expanding from a single point, but there is no evidence that this is necessarily the beginning of the universe.

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

Pure speculation on your part. First, who said that the beginning had a cause? Second, why do you think this cause is a Creator (i.e., an intelligence)?

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.

So can the universe's: everything that happened prior to the Big Bang happened instantaneously, and then time began*, and the universe began to expand.

*"then time began" is fraught with linguistic and philosophical errors, but it'll do.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Even if time had a beginning, there would be no "before" by default. Otherwise, it'd be part of the timeframe, right? Whatever preceded the beginning of time lies entirely outside the chain of cause-and-effect, or our linear conceptions of before and after.

 

[durangodawood]

Nobody knows whether the universe has a beginning, or if its an endless expansion/contraction cycle, or its simply "eternal" in multiple dimensions yet "temporal" in our three.... or some other alternative.
.
Every argument based on speculating about the universe in this way is worthless.
.

 

[Legion.As.One]

Some things can only be answered in the last seconds of existance.

 

[Booko]

He was just there. All of his time prior to creation can be compressed into a single moment, because nothing happened.

And how exactly do we know there were not Creations before this, and once our Creation has ended in heat death or whatever else, there will be Creations to follow?

Answer: We don't, and we simply can't.

 

[SecretOfFatima]

And about here I'll create a random question:

If before the Bing Bang (really a big expansion), there was no thing. No dimensions of time or space. No thing. Chaos and order, in one big but small thing of nothingness. How can "god" exist, if there was no place for it to exist?

I would like to take a shot at this question with more time, but I dont have the time right now.

So, here is my brief view.

GOD was always there.

Atheists don't know everything we beleiver know.

What we know about GOD is based on what GOD has revelead to us.

I have had the opurtunity to listen to a detail explanation by a priest who is a professor at a big US university about the big bang theory, and all the scientific facts behind the big ban theory truly shows that the odds for something random to have happen is too great and to perfect. If you ever played the lottery you should know everything about the odd's to win the big one.

To understand this logic we could probably could try to create a comparison, for example if you landed in a desert island with nobody living in that island, but you then find a SOS message written in the sandy beach, then you would just assume that someone must have been there and written that message, basically you would assume that the SOS message in the sand was not there by chance.

This is a similar argument atheist make against perfect things like the big bang, that IMO did not occur at random or by chance, but must have a designer behind such perfections. For someone to beleive that even with such odd's there is no creator, then Atheists must be much bigger beleivers then for us who beleive in a creator.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And the puddle wonders how the sidewalk could have been designed to fit its shape so perfectly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

And the puddle wonders how the sidewalk could have been designed to fit its shape so perfectly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What are the odds!?!
.