- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
We came from a common ancestor... that ancestor was unicellular and wouldn't be recognized as a plant. Think of plants, animals and fungi as sister-taxa.
As did Vishnu. Praise Vishnu!
You make it look like every passage in the Bible is a witness against natural selection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural selection played a part in the creation of man.
But a very small part.
Yes, I understand that is how you justify your assertion that every event requires a cause.Originally Posted by SkyWriting"Everything has a cause or source."
Then you misunderstood me.
I was simply referring to the laws of physics.
Physics -- Newton's Laws of Motion - For Dummies
Newton's First Law
It's hard to fathom a reason if one is not familiar with the source or cause.
That's pretty good researching! I like your style.
Clearly this isn't already happening. If it were, then the story of a common origin
for life followed by evolutionary changes would be true. All we'd have to do is look
close and see it happening.
As to what they ARE seeing, read the last line:
"It doesn't have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution."
It happens all the time in quantum mechanics.First of all I am a Christian and I am a Young Earth Creationist.
To say something came from nothing by accident is quite absurd.
Yes, but since that is not analogous to evolution, the point is moot.that is like saying paint can magically throw itself accidentally and randomly on a canvas accidentally and randomly creating a masterpiece, see how absurd that sounds.
As it turns out, too simple.nothing comes from nothing. something comes from something, very simple.
And your proof is...?One of two things happened, God created the earth the way he says he did in the Bible or he guided Evolution. Evolution could have not happened without God.
There is no evidence that this was the case. Despite the popular misconception, there's no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe.the universe began to exist
Again, that is incorrect. The law of causality is spotty at best; there is no guarantee that any given event will have a cause.so it was caused,
Again, that is incorrect. Even if the universe had a cause, there's nothing to say that there isn't an infinite regress of causes, or an 'open' or circular timeline. And besides, you seem quite willing to accept the existence of something uncaused - why can't that thing be the universe?and the first cause of all causes must be uncaused,
Again, that is incorrect. Even if there was a first uncaused cause, there's absolutely nothing to say it was God (that is, the Christian God, a single, concious, intelligent entity who answers prayers and got Mary pregnant). It could, for instance, be an inert phenomenon - or Brahman.Which is God.
Again, where is your evidence? What statistical data lead you to that conclusion?evolution without God just can't happen. there is no chance, the probability would be so low. unless God guided those accidents and coincidences, evolution could have not occurred.
Creationism wrapped up in sheep's clothing, with no actual scientific merit or shred of evidence.combine that with Intelligent Design,
A specious idea, in that even if an IC system could be shown to exist, that still wouldn't disprove evolution.Irreducible Complexity,
Both fully explicable under evolution.Emotions, Morality,
The Qu'ran. See? It's easy!and The Bible.
Sorry, not one thing you said is either true or, indeed, a challenge to evolution.the "evolution" theory just couldn't have happened.
First of all I am a Christian and I am a Young Earth Creationist.
To say something came from nothing by accident is quite absurd. that is like saying paint can magically throw itself accidentally and randomly on a canvas accidentally and randomly creating a masterpiece, see how absurd that sounds. nothing comes from nothing. something comes from something, very simple.
One of two things happened, God created the earth the way he says he did in the Bible or he guided Evolution. Evolution could have not happened without God. the universe began to exist so it was caused, and the first cause of all causes must be uncaused, Which is God.
evolution without God just can't happen. there is no chance, the probability would be so low. unless God guided those accidents and coincidences, evolution could have not occurred.
combine that with Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Emotions, Morality, and The Bible. the "evolution" theory just couldn't have happened.
How does a single cell learn how to reproduce?
mkatzwork said:Why would it need to "learn"? The question is malformed.
As a cell gets larger it has to divide; when its radius doubles, its volume increases eightfold and its surface area just fourfold - which requires eight times as much metabolic activity with only four times the surface area through which to achieve that activity. Division is the only option once a cell reaches a certain size.
If you want to bash the arguments on their weak spot, you should look more into the processes of organic molecules becoming protocells, and focus less on cell division, which we know a great deal about.
I accept that you believe this.First of all I am a Christian and I am a Young Earth Creationist.
To say something came from nothing by accident is quite absurd. that is like saying paint can magically throw itself accidentally and randomly on a canvas accidentally and randomly creating a masterpiece, see how absurd that sounds. nothing comes from nothing. something comes from something, very simple.
One of two things happened, God created the earth the way he says he did in the Bible or he guided Evolution. Evolution could have not happened without God. the universe began to exist so it was caused, and the first cause of all causes must be uncaused, Which is God.
evolution without God just can't happen. there is no chance, the probability would be so low. unless God guided those accidents and coincidences, evolution could have not occurred.
combine that with Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Emotions, Morality, and The Bible. the "evolution" theory just couldn't have happened.
Yes, but since that is not analogous to evolution, the point is moot.
And your proof is...?
There is no evidence that this was the case. Despite the popular misconception, there's no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe.
Again, that is incorrect. The law of causality is spotty at best; there is no guarantee that any given event will have a cause.
Again, that is incorrect. Even if the universe had a cause, there's nothing to say that there isn't an infinite regress of causes, or an 'open' or circular timeline. And besides, you seem quite willing to accept the existence of something uncaused - why can't that thing be the universe?
Again, that is incorrect. Even if there was a first uncaused cause, there's absolutely nothing to say it was God (that is, the Christian God, a single, concious, intelligent entity who answers prayers and got Mary pregnant). It could, for instance, be an inert phenomenon - or Brahman.
Again, where is your evidence? What statistical data lead you to that conclusion?
Creationism wrapped up in sheep's clothing, with no actual scientific merit or shred of evidence.
A specious idea, in that even if an IC system could be shown to exist, that still wouldn't disprove evolution.
Nope, Morals actually contradict evolution. morals aren't an illusion or made up, and anyone were to say that would be lying. there is right and wrong and that is objective. right and wrong have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.Both fully explicable under evolution.
In other words: "it just does?"
mkatzwork said:Well, from an evolutionary standpoint, single-celled organisms that didn't have the inbuilt need/desire/motivation/whatever to reproduce wouldn't have reproduced - and would have been eliminated at the first generation - so it's hardly surprising that the colossal majority of organisms we see today do have that trait.
If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the big bang.
Your proof?, because Cause and effect are common sense.
Are you serious? It is hardly surprising that the first single cell organism developed the ability to reproduce in the first generation? You find this somehow easier to believe than we came from an intelligent designer?
You might find it less likely to believe in an IDer if you had a degree in microbiology. Self replicating proteins is not too far of a stretch.Are you serious? It is hardly surprising that the first single cell organism developed the ability to reproduce in the first generation? You find this somehow easier to believe than we came from an intelligent designer?
Again, the analogy is moot. Evolution works by have successive generations of inheritance, with random variations in genes being preferentially selected for or against. Over time, traits change. Complexity is no issue to evolution, either theoretically or experimentally. What evolution doesn't say is that something popped out of nothing, that complex systems spontaneously and randomly came together fully-formed, tornado-through-a-junkyard sort of thing.Yes it is analogous to "evolution", when you say accidents and coincidences out of nothing happen to make something so complex it sounds absurd. that's like saying for example my computer was created out of nothing and but a mere coincidence and that it just "appears" to have been made by something of greater intelligence.
Err... the cosmological argument has nothing to do with God, evolution, or even life on this planet. It has to do with causality and the supposition of a 'first cause'. So, I ask you again. You said, "Evolution could have not happened without God" - what's your proof?Cosmological argument
The website is simply incorrect. As I said, it's a popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The evidence shows that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a small, hot, dense state, and that state is of such high energy that our theories don't work - we need something better in order to probe beyond. So we know the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but there's no evidence that it began back then.From existence-of-God.com June 7, 2012. :
The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite
The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the big bang.
The past cannot go back forever, then; the universe must have a beginning. The next question is whether something caused this beginning, or whether the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. We all know, though, that nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause; nothing comes from nothing. For something to come into existence there must be something else that already exists that can bring it into existence. The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence, that the universe has a Creator.
I'm a nuclear physicist, quantum mechanics throws causality out the window. Radioactive decay, the Casimir effect, etc - all are examples of cause without effect.Your proof?
Certainly, but 'common sense' doesn't mean it's real.because Cause and effect are common sense.
Perhaps, but whoever said it had to be great? Even if the cosmological argument worked (and it doesn't), that only shows that there was a first uncaused cause - not a great uncaused cause.Because the Universe had a beginning, Only logical that the first Uncaused cause, which no greater can be conceived is God.
Incorrect. First, the cosmological argument only argues for the existence of a first cause - there is nothing to say that this cause must be eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, perfect, etc. There's nothing to say it must even be concious. You are simply tacking those properties on without justification, because it fits your religious beliefs.it is God, what is the meaning of God? eternal(creator of time, not bound by it), all powerful, all knowing, everywhere, Perfect(of which nothing greater can be conceived) and Jesus Christ Resurrection proves that everything in the Old and New Testament is truth. Thus God is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.
Right, and I want to know exactly logic you're referring to, exactly what data are saying what you think they're saying. If it's a statistically impossibility, then prove it. All you've done here is just repeat the claim.Logic, it is a statistical impossibility that this all happened by itself. no complex intelligence can happen by fluke of nothing. "evolution" has such a low to no possibility of happening.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean everything is designed, or that complexity is always the hallmark of a designer. Evolution explains how complexity can arise spontaneously and without intervention. God may have had a hand to play, but the fact is we can explain biological diversity and complexity by wholly natural processes.Intelligent design is truth, the earth doesn't just appear to be intelligent, it is. thus it came from a higher source of intelligence(God). that would be like saying computers just appear to be intelligent and it's a fluke. they appear to intelligent because they are intelligent and were made by something more intelligent.
On the contrary, irreducible complexity says that something that's IC loses its specific function. That may well be the case, but that doesn't mean it didn't evolve - the simple fact is, that function can change. What once served one function can get usurped and serve another. This second function may well be irreducibly complex, but the fallacy of IC is that is assumes that there can only be one function.Yes it does disprove evolution, you can't evolve when your irreducibly complex, take out one vital organ and we won't be able to function at all. we've had to had it all at once. that isn't evolution.
Several things here. First, it is a matter of long philosophical debate as to whether morals are objective or subjective - you, in simply asserting objectivity, have by no means settle the debate. Second, morals have everything to do with survival of the fittest - those close-living organisms which operate in a cohesive and mutually beneficial society thrive, while those which decimate each other don't.Nope, Morals actually contradict evolution. morals aren't an illusion or made up, and anyone were to say that would be lying. there is right and wrong and that is objective. right and wrong have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
Rape can cause pregnancy, but it destroys any bond between parents - in human society, children are raised best by two loving parents. Rape destroys that, hence our evolved instinct to abhor it."1. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?
No, and nothing in evolution says that it is.2.Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitlers plan).Does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing?
The sheer existence of society, for one thing. Evolved morals are there for a reason, and unless humanity evolves to become isolated individuals, those same reasons will keep those moral instincts in check. Cultural morals are also there, and society, through education, will keep those in check too.3.Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution is the source of morality, then whats to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered moral?
That's a naive conflation of two different philosophies of ethics.4.Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists).So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong.How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law?
That is incorrect, but you defeat any hope of discussion by putting fingers in your ears and going, "LALALA IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE JUST LYING TO YOURSELF". There is no hope of civil discourse with that attitude.If evolution occurred there would be no right or wrong, since there is right and wrong evolution wouldn't be possible. and to even attempt to justify any wrong would be lying to yourself because you know what is right and wrong. everyone(unless they are a sociopath with no heart) knows right and wrong. morals are laws that we follow, not by man, it is something more than man, so it is obligated, by who? God.
'Subjective' doesn't mean 'rape is OK'.and if you say morals are subjective you are lying to yourself, someone could try to defend rape, but it is still a fact that rape is wrong.
Your naive dichotomy belies more about you than you think it does about me. There are good, well-understood reasons for why we behave morally, for why we consider rape and murder to be wrong, etc. That you've closed your mind to it is your own problem. The answers are there, but you've dogmatically removed them from your vision.If evolution happened, there would be no such thing as unselfishness or love. since love and unselfishness exist, evolution could not have occurred. if someone were to deny morality they would be either be 1)Deluded 2) a sociopath. 3) lying to themselves
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?