- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hehe, I may be wrong, but if some people already knew the right answers, they wouldn't be searching.
Just a point to ponder.
Hi David
++”Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account.
Not to my mind. It is not a fact that Moses wrote Genesis. It does not say anywhere in Genesis that it is written from an Earth-bound observer’s point of view; it certainly does not read that way in the KJV. The “knowledge” that the universe existed before the creative periods is supposition, not supported by Gen 1:1. There is no particular controversy about the Judeo-Christian creation myth. A small minority of the world population believe it to be literally, even figuratively a true account. It is a fictional story based on Babylonian / Mesopotamian myths, and like anything can be distorted severely to make it fit the observed facts, as you have attempted to do.
++”Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.
What do you call a vast period of time? Plants and animals have arisen and in some cases changed massively over really vast periods of time. That’s all in the fossil record too.
++”Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible’s declaration that God created all things.
No, it is rejected because there are explanations that do a much better job, with fewer far-fetched assumptions or convoluted interpretations, for the observations we make.
++”Wasn't it less than a hundred years ago that scientists began to think that maybe the universe had a beginning?
The science capable of verifying such things is much less than 100 years old. Unlike mythologies, science has waited until it is possible to have an intelligent discussion about the evidence for the Big Bang.
Most religions have a myth of origins. Are you saying they all got it right about the Big Bang?++”Science is always changing, replacing old theories with better ones.
Yes science was never very happy about fitting all the known and unknown species into a single wooden craft, or producing a human female from a rib, or being able to see all the kingdoms of the world from a single high point.
Stuart
++”Hehe, I may be wrong, but if some people already knew the right answers, they wouldn't be searching. Just a point to ponder.
That's the whole point of science. The point of religion is that all the answers you'll ever need are in someone's holy book.
Stuart
Hi again David
++”I've notice you said this “all fossils are transitional forms” a few times.
We have fossil 1 which looks nothing like fossil 8.
Fossil 1 seems to be an entirely different kind of creature than 8.
So, when we say this, what we mean is that we're wanting to see the actual transition, the numbers between 1 and 8.Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
++”And the DNA, the common ansestry you speak of.
All of Da Vinci's works have a certain feel. Picasso's a completely different feel, and look.
If God created these things, would they not all have his stamp on them?Possibly. But there is evidence that Da Vinci and Picasso designed their work. There is no evidence that the universe and life were designed.
++”I could stare at the house on the other side of the street and ask the same question. It's quite possible that if there were billions of years of time everything possible would happen right? That house across the street would come together in just that way, as though designed, and yet, by accident.
No, houses are designed and built.
++”The answer to the question: does design require a designer is, “of course.”
Yes. So what?
++”We can take the simplest of things. Take a meat grinder made up of 15 parts. Take it apart and set it in a bathtub. Now, shake that bathtube for 100 billion years. Will you have a meat grinder?
No.
++”No. You'll have a wrecked tub, and metal shavings everywhere.
Yes.
++”Things that have design tend to have designers.
You understate the case. All designed things have a designer.
++”You may look at the same meat grinder and say, I see no design. It happened by chance. Well, I see design, even in very very simple thing.
No, I see design in that human-made object too.
Is it not just as well then that living things do not attempt to reproduce by shaking in a bathtub?
Stuart
Hi the prolific David
++”Aren't the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong neucler force and weak neucler force) so precisely finely tuned.
No. They just happened to be.
++”What if any of these forces were .001% stronger or weaker. Could the universe even exist? Could any universe exist?
Possibly not.
++”It almost seems like those numbers were chosen. Like those were the only numbers that could ever work.
Yes humans are egocentric and think the universe is here just for them. There are only religious reasons to think this way.
++”The “law” of gravity, who wrote that law? Everything in the universe is made up of math. All the bits that science studies, they keep looking for the smallest bit. What they find isn't stuff. It's energy and math. Who devised these calculations? Who provided the energy, the abundance of energy?
You tell me! You're the one pretending there is a “who”!
++”The Bible answers.
Gen 1:1 And there was a large explosion of protomatter / energy and within a few minutes the light elements had formed from their constituent quarks.
1:2 Over the course of the next few billon years the matter attracted gravitationally according to the inverse-square relationship of the sharing of gravitons
1:3 and yes the square relationship also was applied to of light and electrical attraction because area varies as the square of distance
1:4 and it came to pass that as enough hydrogen gathered together it began slowly to undergo nuclear fusion, forming heavier elements as products
1:5 and in those stars where the nuclear fuel was running out, collapse followed by explosion was the result
1:6 and in an area surrounding one particular exploded star dust formed which, in time, was attracted by a fairly typical and not particularly special nearly star, part of the way into its life
1:7 and the heavy-element dust went into orbit then accumulated by gravitational attraction into larger objects known as planets
1:8 and the planets closest to the star were molten and slowly cooled allowing the gaseous water to condense onto the crusted surface…
No “who” so far…
Stuart
Quote (david @ Aug. 06 2007,17:02) Quote E.g., saying that DNA of an ape is mostly similar to a human and therefore deriving that we came from Apes is still imagination. You could also argue equally that it only proves that the ape and humans came from the same programmer. All programmers reuse code and even this page you are looking at is just code with a HTML interpreter to make sense of it. (Go to the view menu and click on source to see the genetical makeup of this webpage). I am a web developer by trade and I could for example create 2 completely looking websites but could use say 50% of the same code. I don't need to reinvent the wheel each time do I?
This is the point I was trying to make. T8 made it better. If I make a bunch of paintings, they are going to look different than if you made a bunch of paintings. since it is all from God, it should all have some similariites.
I presume you have read my reply in which I analyse the incompetence of the Celestial Coder?Stu I have news for you . My Husband and I do not belong to any church we have been studying by ourselves for over 12 years now. We made the mistake to listen to man once but not again. My Husband, and I think by myself, we take no body's word for it. But you obviously do not believe in the Bible. No the Bible does not tell anybody to have blind faith on the contrary it says to prove all things. I already told you the reason why I think the Bible is the word of God. And I do know what I reject. Satan and His Demons. You never answered my question if you believed in good and evil? About the man being wise in his own eyes comes out of the Bible. As far as the big bang is concerned I already explained that to you, but of course you wont believe that. You are so set in your beliefs, it would not make any difference what anybody would say to you anyway.
I really feel sorry for you! Living without hope for the future after dead. So I guess you do not believe in Sin either, do you? You do whatever feels good. Ha. as long as it does not hurt anybody. I know what kind of Guy you are, I have come across some like you before. I rather be at Peace with God then live like that.
Peace to you I will pray for you
Mrs.David tackles abiogenesis:
++”How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all.
How do you make this assessment?
++”The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.
How do you know that exactly the same mechanism was not in play by some natural means? You have not said how your imaginary friend achieved the same thing!
++”“Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”
It’s a wonder our water-soaked cells can do any chemistry at all, isn’t it!
++”“the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”
Translation: he can’t imagine how.
++”“It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”
He probably goes on to explain how it happened, in the next paragraph. Creationsists cut off the next paragraph usually.
++”“Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”
And it probably was in 1954. It’s not much easier today. He has not said it did not happen though. He probably explained it on the next page.
++”And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!
No known reason… did your god do it to taunt atheists?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality for some more intelligent speculation than in your material.++”Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 to the 40,000 “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”
Such people know nothing of abiogenesis. There is no reason to suppose anything other than a single, chemically self-replicating molecule at the start of life. Not an easy prospect but still better than “my imaginary friend did it”.
++”And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”
See? Francis knew what he was talking about! PLEASE stop cutting off the next paragraph. He goes on to explain himself.
++”Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.
“THE” genetic code? How about just a replicator to get things going?
++”is, as biologist F. W. Went states, “a process that no one has yet been able to reproduce in a test tube.”
So what??
++”Yet, by chance, a tiny simple cell is thought to have originated it.
Yes, and can you tell us by what process? I suppose a perfectly working molecule of chlorophyll and its supporting enzymes had to have just spontaneously arisen?
++”This process of photosynthesis turned an atmosphere that contained no free oxygen into one in which one molecule out of every five is oxygen. As a result, animals could breathe oxygen and live, and an ozone layer could form to protect all life from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. Could this remarkable array of circumstances be accounted for simply by random chance?
Sees straighforward enough. What mechanism do you propose?
++”A lot of these numbers make evolutionary thinking seem to be a fairy tale, based on impossibly complicated scenerios that mathematically, just can't happen.
True, you can make anything seem impossible to the uninitiated if you misrepresent it for long enough.
++”To say that a car is designed but a human isn't is like comparing a grain of sand to the universe itself. A car is nothing in complexity compared to a human.
Cars are designed. People evolved. You don’t make people by bolting body parts together!
He who claims that natural selection cannot produce complexity is either ignorant or out to deceive.Apologies to all for the long post.
Stuarthi IM4Truth
++” I have news for you . My Husband and I do not belong to any church we have been studying by ourselves for over 12 years now.
My apologies for assuming your situation. It is true that religious groups do immunise against outsiders. You are sure that by reading it the bible has not immunised you?
++”We made the mistake to listen to man once but not again.
Yes, it sounds like it has.
++”My Husband, and I think by myself, we take no body's word for it. But you obviously do not believe in the Bible. No the Bible does not tell anybody to have blind faith on the contrary it says to prove all things. I already told you the reason why I think the Bible is the word of God. And I do know what I reject. Satan and His Demons. You never answered my question if you believed in good and evil?
I go one better than you. I reject satan and his demons AND gods of any kind!
It is pretty obvious that, as in many other species of animal, humans have developed in their cultures and their genes some rules for survival (and for reproduction). Religions have tried to gain “market share” by codifying and taking ownership of the rules (and the political power that results).
Do you honestly think that before Moses supposedly received the tablets, people thought murder was fine and that coveting the next door's ox was going to work out OK? 1500 years of Christian-domination in western Europe did not change the rates of killing or stealing or lying.I believe there are acts worthy of the word evil, but I don't use the word, nor, as you say later, pay any attention to the word sin. I believe there is good, and right and wrong. People are people and do wrong for perfectly understandable, if not excusable, reasons. Problems with brain chemistry, severe pressure brought to bear (often by religious groups!), pathological lack of feeling/empathy for others etc are the symptoms of broken people and should in principle be fixable, just like you fix a car that won't start. I think exorcism probably is not the best treatment.
++”About the man being wise in his own eyes comes out of the Bible. As far as the big bang is concerned I already explained that to you, but of course you wont believe that. You are so set in your beliefs, it would not make any difference what anybody would say to you anyway.
Please don't think that! The theories you think I hold dear would be happily thrown out if unambiguous evidence to the contrary came to light. Evolution, Big Bang, gravity, electricity are all just explanations, only good 'till a better one comes along. So far, none have.
++”I really feel sorry for you! Living without hope for the future after dead.
This life is unbelievably precious. There is no other. That alone is reason to get up in the morning.
++”So I guess you do not believe in Sin either, do you? You do whatever feels good. Ha. as long as it does not hurt anybody. I know what kind of Guy you are, I have come across some like you before. I rather be at Peace with God then live like that.
Have we met? I think you are presuming now!
Do what increases the overall happiness on the planet.
What could be simpler? It really encompasses the one grain of truth contained in christianity: the golden rule.Re sin:
I think the concept of original sin is one of the nastiest dogmas ever invented. The claim that people who have not passed particular religious tests in this life will be punished for eternity is contrary to anyone's natural justice. That hell is for those who don't repent of the sin THEY WERE BORN WITH is even less just. A god who states thus is unjust and unworthy of worship. As for telling little children that their unsaved friend who died in an accident will go to hell, that to my mind is evil.++”Peace to you I will pray for you.
Please don't think me ungrateful, but there are better ways to do good in the world than prayer.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2007,20:07) Hi t8 ++”All those things are so primitive compared to the complexity of the human DNA pool or a galaxy of which there are at least billions.
Very true. Complexity is not evidence for a creator though.
Stuart
Sure. And it is perfectly logical that nothing did an amazing job at the human eye and even better than intelligent humans have, who create cameras that work on the some principle.No one did a better job than someone?
Nothing verses humans with billions of dollars to spend on research and nothing wins? And not only wins, but wins by a long shot?If a human and an ant had a fight to the death, would you back the ant? It seems like you have done this in the nothing verses creator debate.
There is a such thing as common sense Stuart.
Hi t8
++”Sure. And it is perfectly logical that nothing did an amazing job at the human eye and even better than intelligent humans have, who create cameras that work on the some principle.
Not nothing. Natural selection. I don't know about intelligence, but I don't think we have the technology to make an eye. Yet.
Even if natural selection couldn't explain the arising of complexity, which it actually can perfectly, that still doesn't mean that an imaginary friend did it, or even exists. Anyway, who designed the imaginary friend?
++”Nothing verses humans with billions of dollars to spend on research and nothing wins? And not only wins, but wins by a long shot?
Do you intend to carry on misleading readers about how natural selection works?
Do you understand how it works?You would have to make a single cell that will multiply to give a blade of grass. The chemical synthesis of the DNA alone would take many times longer than the timescale you give. Are you putting up the money?
++”If a human and an ant had a fight to the death, would you back the ant? It seems like you have done this in the nothing verses creator debate.
I'm sorry, you've lost me T8. Is this some kind of biblical analogy?
Stuart
To all If we agree that an Atheist does not belong on this website, and we are wasting our time with him. He has no truth that we can learn from. And no common sense. He will continue as long as we reply. I like to make a suggestion to stop answering his Post.
Mrs.hi IM4Truth
++”To all If we agree that an Atheist does not belong on this website, and we are wasting our time with him. He has no truth that we can learn from. And no common sense. He will continue as long as we reply. I like to make a suggestion to stop answering his Post.
I am sorry if you feel you are wasting your time. What were you trying to achieve with me? It was t8 who started the thread asking for “proof” (evidence) for or against evolution by natural selection. As I saw it, lots of posts showed some profound ignorance (no crime in that), few knowing what evolution actually is. Is it too much to ask that one who slags something off at least does so from a position of knowledge of that thing?
You certainly could criticise if you think my posts have deviated from the subject, as well they probably have from time to time. But the main thrust of the discussion has been around how science and religion deal with origins, including evolution.
I can't see how I have no common sense, before you send me to Coventry (or burn the heretic) I wonder if you might explain what common sense you think I am missing?
Stuart:(
Perhaps someday you will find that Science is limited on many fronts? Perhaps not. Anyway, peace be with you.
Quote (IM4Truth @ Aug. 06 2007,23:20) To all If we agree that an Atheist does not belong on this website, and we are wasting our time with him. He has no truth that we can learn from. And no common sense. He will continue as long as we reply. I like to make a suggestion to stop answering his Post.
Mrs.
On the contrary, most people who do not believe in an Almighty God or any god have more “common sense” than most of us! ha! That seems to be the issue at hand, that faith is lacking…… We know that it is impossible to please God without faith. So we encourage those who do not have a belief in God, to search their common sense and logical reasoning for room – room to believe in something that, to them, makes no sense. This is no small task, and it takes patience; it takes kindness and love – all the fruits of the Spirit.Personally, I love to spend time talking with those who find many reasons for not beleiving in God. It gives me an opportunity to share how great, how awesome my God truly is! An opportunity to “live out loud” before them so that they can sense and see the peace within me. Most folks are searching…….and if they can't put a finger on what it is they are searching for, chances are it is peace of mind. Through Christ, most Christians have peace of mind (even if it is belieiving in something that Atheist believe is nonesense). This is intriging to them, and this is why they are here.
If you set out to “change” anyone, you will be defeated. It is God who draws all men unto himself. We are merely the witnesses to his great love and mercy. So, don't shoot the messenger! God loves you; man, women, child! God loves you!
Stu and A4J,
This may not be your solid belief, but it is mine; God created us. Because God created us, there is a chip or part of us, if you will, that belongs only to Him. We can try and fill it with other things (anti-depressants, sex, careers, wisdom…..), but it will not make us whole no matter how hard we pursue these things. It is only when we acknowledge that we have a Creator, and we are the creation, that the peace of mind and soul comes into our lives.
This is not weakness or stupidity……….it is respect in it's highest form. Just try it, if you haven't already in your life. Acknowledge that there is a Creator, and you are the work of his Hands; worship God for who He is and see what happens in your life. There will be an evolution of your soul!
We may believe differently, but we are all human and share this planet with one another – I respect you both!
MandyAMEN Sis!
Head knowledge doesn't do anyone any good in the spiritual. You can know scripture but unless you know it's author you find the truth. If one tries to understand a Spiritual book with their head full of man's knowledge then they become atheist.
Herein lies the communication gap
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
Unless Stu IS seeking truth, Spiritual Truth, and unless he is able to climb out of his evolution soup bowl then their is no hope for him. HOWEVER if he is allowed to stick around may be God will throw him a life preserver. At any rate if he does pull any weeds out the garden then I'm all for it! May be he's just the gardener
Quote No, houses are designed and built. Most are. But couldn't one arise by chance? And if not, why?
Quote (david @ Aug. 07 2007,14:42) Quote No, houses are designed and built. Most are. But couldn't one arise by chance? And if not, why?
Hi DavidYou're really lost me now. You are suggesting that houses could arise by chance?
What are you trying to say?
Stuart
Quote (kenrch @ Aug. 07 2007,06:53) AMEN Sis! Head knowledge doesn't do anyone any good in the spiritual. You can know scripture but unless you know it's author you find the truth. If one tries to understand a Spiritual book with their head full of man's knowledge then they become atheist.
Herein lies the communication gap
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
Unless Stu IS seeking truth, Spiritual Truth, and unless he is able to climb out of his evolution soup bowl then their is no hope for him. HOWEVER if he is allowed to stick around may be God will throw him a life preserver. At any rate if he does pull any weeds out the garden then I'm all for it! May be he's just the gardener
Hi Kenrck1 Co really has a good point here. You have to agree with the facts up to the “spiritually judged” bit.
I think that there is no particular way of thinking of which you are capable and I am not, all other things being equal. There is plenty of evidence that people can be mislead into thinking that they have some special gifts or powers.
Anyway, the wheels come off in the next verse:
1 Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
You might call me a wise guy but how arrogant is that??
You strike me as a straightforward person of good humour (see I can't help myself, I have to pass judgement on you now – How 1 Co has tempted the temptable!) but I can't agree with your celebration of ignorance. Is your faith so weak that it could be toppled by a proper understanding of the science you reject?
On gardening; you forget, Kenrck it is the beloved and worshipped fairies at the bottom of my garden that do the weeding at our place.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
