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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Fail.
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.
So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am not arguing against evolution as a change in an organism, but I object to speciation because of evolution.
There is no evidence connected to what some call macro evolution.
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.How do you know this is true?
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?
Please tell me your understanding of how macro and micro evolution differ dynamicly.
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.Please define "the species level", and source the relavent scientific data that supports your claim.
Why do human beings have a tail bone?
Do you have a more reliable, more informative resource that you use?
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.Do you have any expertise in the field?
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 does that mean?
I have already touched upon some of them.Can you give an example of what you are speaking of?
Revision and retrofitting things to conform to the theory is what I observe. That is not scientific, but guessing in a arbitrary fashion.Please list the flaws and huge assumptions that you have found in your studies that you find relevant to this discussion.
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?Perhaps you should read up on it. There is a wealth of information if you are actually curious to learn.
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.Why?
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.Wrong. There is loads of evidence. You could easily find it, the thing is, you have to actually look first.
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?
If "god" doesn't exist materially how can such a thing be sentient, let alone communicate with people?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Revision and retrofitting things to conform to the theory is what I observe. That is not scientific, but guessing in a arbitrary fashion.
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?
Nope. You have to prove two things: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.
Sure we would have: there would have been an infinite amount of time before this moment.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.
It has been expanding from a single point, but there is no evidence that this is necessarily the beginning of the universe.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.
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)?So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.
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.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.
He was just there. All of his time prior to creation can be compressed into a single moment, because nothing happened.
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?
What are the odds!?!And the puddle wonders how the sidewalk could have been designed to fit its shape so perfectly.
eudaimonia,
Mark