mdancin4theLord
Well-Known Member
But you all are saying God didn't do it right that God by creation is wrong?
Are you willing to admit that?
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 don't know" is very different from "God did it". The later requires belief, the former does not.
I could say the same thing about people who are not beleivers. Because you can't fathom a God does not mean you can prove there isn't one and that God does not exist. And since Christianity is the largest faith on earth......a lot of people can fathom it.
There is no point to proving something doesn't exist. Their simply is no evidence for any type of god. That's it.
also that second part? that's a fallacy of ad populum
Which is why they say what they do about extraordinary claims. So far I haven't seen anything that cannot be understood in natural, materialistic terms. Furthermore, as the Bible becomes increasingly antiquated, it's use as a source of history, morals, ethics, politics and science become even more spurious.
I'm not surprised you feel the video is a strawman argument though, as a short video can only address the salient facts, namely, theists claim there is a god, atheists reserve judgment until burden of proof has been met. As there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity alone, and no doubt countless opinions within each of those, make it hard to address each one individually. However, even with it's limitations, the video does make a point.
There is no point to proving something doesn't exist. Their simply is no evidence for any type of god. That's it.
also that second part? that's a fallacy of ad populum
What is more bizarre than thinking that something came from nothing? Come on........The complex systems of our bodies...of the solar system...all in perfect fitting order...by chance.
What is the best selling book throughout the world? What has been the best selling book of all time? It has touched peoples lives and transformed them. It gives hope and guidance and shows the love God has for His people.
So many Christians......and only one view on athiesm. I have seen definitions that describe athiests as those who reject God...and say He does not exist.
That is a factual statement one you know you can't make. So at best you are an agnostice....who does not know. There are strong athiests and weak ones.......not one definition to describe your worldview.
If you compared every Christian denomination....they probably would all agree on one thing...the Divinity of Christ. They all believe there is a God.
What is more bizarre than thinking that something came from nothing? Come on........The complex systems of our bodies...of the solar system...all in perfect fitting order...by chance.
Not true.
An athiest says........THERE IS NO GOD.
That is a factual statement based on what? The what is something they can't prove. They can't address the first cause...they guess what happened...nothing has been proven.
They believe by faith...even if its in themselves and what they choose to believe.
Split Rock said, "Creationists are the only ones who claim anyone thinks these came into being by blind chance. They did not. They evolved. They were not poofed into existance by a god. "
"Really? Which part? The mud man? The rib woman? The talking snake? The Tree of knowledge with magic fruit? Or the flaming sword?'
"You will stick to the position that your erroneous interpretation of scripture is "God's Inerrant Word." Why you bother reading about entropy (which says nothing about evolution) is beyond me. Worse still, you are probably getting your information on entropy from creationist sources that are lying to you (not that you care). F.Y.I. The second law of thermodynamics does not preclude local increases in entropy within a system wherein net entropy is increasing. Your lying creationist sources won't tell you that, though."
I am not so sure about "any type". Perhaps there is no evidence for your concept of God. Perhaps the problem is your concept. Usually when Atheists tell me what they do not believe in, I agree with them. I do not believe in what they imagine God to be. They simply do not know and have learned nothing about the real and true God. What they do not believe in is little more then a strawman that they build for themselves. They have not learned and do not know about the real and true God that Created this universe that we all live in. Good that He is good, because He has absolute power.Their simply is no evidence for any type of god.
No we believe we have enough proof to believe. We are not idiots. I have asked and asked those who think they are scientists in this discussion to address the first cause...and how evolution got started. THEY CAN'T. WICCAN said as much. She simply can't, and no one else in the world can either. You people are the ones who believe that something came from NOTHING.
TAKE A STAB AT IT.......you tell me what that first cause was.
So what is happening here is that I list frauds.....in the evolutionary world and you quickly change the subject....address the frauds and quit running.
Well one thing leads to another....and I find it all interesting. What I can't read about entropy? LOL
From what I have read...entropy shoots evolution dead in the water.
"The universe is dying from heat loss but according to entropy or the second law of thermodynamics everything runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay. Evolution directly contradicts this law....in that.. it describes a universe in which things run from utter chaos to complexity and
order. In evolution atoms allegedly self-produce amino acids, amino acids auto-organize amoebas, amoebas turn into apes and apes evolve into astronauts." The Farce of Evolution, by Hank Hanegraaff page 85.
The conditions that hold true in the universe today prevent any possiblity of matter springing out of nothing....so the universe could not have eternally existed. This hypothesis is killed by the law of entropy...which predicts that a universe that has eternally existed would have died out billions of years ago...by heat loss.
So when you say this has nothing to do with evolution and the whole scheme of things...you are wrong. It just tossed out one theory that evolutionists have about the possiblities of how everything came to be.
Just a question for ya. Do you think there are any creation scientists on earth?
Are they out to lunch too?
I think that you so hate the idea of God
that you will believe anything and I mean anything......like something came from nothing.
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."-*Arthur N. Field.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."-*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."-*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."-*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."-*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"-*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."-*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."-*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."-*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."-*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs-as has been repeatedly shown-the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."-*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."-*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."-Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."-*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."-*Arthur N. Field.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."-*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."-*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."-*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."-*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"-*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."-*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."-*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
The Big Bang theory does not describe the beginning of the universe. For all we know, the universe could be eternal..
Are you seriously presenting your opinion upon a gross examination of a handful of pictures on Wikipedia as refuting the opinions of multiple trained paleontologists which are formed on multiple instances of direct observation with a wide range of samples?
That depends on how deleterious the mutation is.Only under substantial selective pressure, which if I'm not mistaken tends to peak and valley rather than persist constantly. So, in the meantime, deleterious mutations would have had ample time to manifest in populations
If that were true, we'd all be dead. Most mutations are neutral or near neutral, not deleterious.Given that experimentation with bacteria has shown that only a handful of beneficial mutations become fixed out of hundreds of millions of mutations, selective pressure must kill off significantly more populations than it strengthens.
I will not allow evolutionists to attempt to brainwash me into thinking that evolution is science. What it is... is science fiction.
Yea the good ole Nebraska man....Piltdown and Orce Man..
..then there was the Haeckles embryo fraud,
did I mention Java Man and Neanderthal Man and little Lucy?
Archaeoraptor the missing link fraud.
A blog?evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/
Quoting a 118 year old article 2nd hand andO. C. Marsh, Recent Polydactyle Horses, American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 as quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125.
an in-house publication from ICR by an Aerospace Engineer quoting Eldredge? Why don't they just quote Eldredge or more importantly, why don't you just quote Eldredge directly?Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwins Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78.
Yes he
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?