Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[Proclaimer]

Stu, the fact that you believe a singularity turned into the cosmos, which then in turn spawned life from which an intelligent species eventually arose with no outside or other guidance whatsoever is a type of miracle, albeit a false one if you want my opinion. But a type of miracle all the same.

Stu, your theory could equally be called “The theory of the greatest miracle of all”.

You teach and believe in a miracle so great that even just basic common sense can see that this miracle is not feasible.

[Enochs author]

Thanks all for comments. I retire and shall no longer frequent this site. I can see what I'm up against. I retire a defeated man.

[Stu]

Quote (Enochs author @ July 08 2008,23:38)

Thanks all for comments.  I retire and shall no longer frequent this site.  I can see what I'm up against.  I retire a defeated man.

Not at all. You are engaged and fundamentally right. I do understand what you mean though. Nevertheless ignorance should be no excuse for a fundamentalist religionist to lie about nature and the models we make for its function. The fundamentalist only has fantasy to peddle. Reality bites them on the backside and all they do is deny that it hurts. Think of the knight in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' who fights on despite having his arms and legs chopped off.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2008,20:04)

Stu, the fact that you believe a singularity turned into the cosmos, which then in turn spawned life from which an intelligent species eventually arose with no outside or other guidance whatsoever is a type of miracle, albeit a false one if you want my opinion. But a type of miracle all the same. Stu, your theory could equally be called “The theory of the greatest miracle of all”. You teach and believe in a miracle so great that even just basic common sense can see that this miracle is not feasible.

You sound a bit confused in your calling it a type of miracle but a false one. Is this you grappling with the challenge of redefining the word miracle? With god all things are possible, so I suppose the word miracle can mean anything. You can call it a miracle if you want to. I wouldn't call it a miracle because that is not what the word means. Please tell me what 'common sense' has to do with it (you need some commitment and a bit of uncommon sense to understand it).

It is quite endearing that you are trying to make religious language encompass the world of science. Is it no longer important to you to have a special set of words to define that special set of imagined knowledge and qualities that separate you from the heathen? Either you are special or we are all the same.

Stuart

[Theologian-and-Apologist]

Ha ha ha ha ! Evolution is GARBAGE!

First of all- Nothing in the fossil record for evolution

Second of all- Scientists can only cause Micro-evolution, or changing species in a general type, but Macro-evolution is impossible.

Making evolution without God impossible, for more elaboration check out
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist by Norman Guisler and Frank Turek

[Stu]

Quote (Theologian-and-Apologist @ July 14 2008,09:50)

Ha ha ha ha ! Evolution is GARBAGE! First of all- Nothing in the fossil record for evolution Second of all- Scientists can only cause Micro-evolution, or changing species in a general type, but Macro-evolution is impossible. Making evolution without God impossible, for more elaboration check out I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist by Norman Guisler and Frank Turek

Are you a publisher's agent?

I look forward to seeing you on the platform at the Swedish Academy of Sciences holding aloft your Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded for your brilliant rebuttal of Darwin. May I suggest that it might take a little more than shouting 'it is rubbish'?

The Old Testament is rubbish. That makes the score one all.

Stuart

[Theologian-and-Apologist]

Well, I have evidence in my view I say. Truly, it is correct.

There is nothing in the fossil record, not one fossil that leads to 'evolution.'

Evolution, as tried by intelligent scientists, the scientists could only get micro-evolution, which is changing in between types, which is like a cat to a cat or a dog to a dog, but macro-evolution is impossible. Well really I have to say, what evolution do you believe in? I think micro-evolution is possible, heck we can even see it happen. But if intelligent scientists cannot produce macro-evolution, neither can blind nature produce it. I mean as in also, there is evidence against it, but none for it.

For more details on this I want you to read up a bit.

Aw, so sad. I don't agree with you on the Bible part. I personally believe you know, all the evidence, and the prophecy, leads to the conclusion that the Old Testament is true.

It is your eternity, I encourage you to read up on the factor. Try a few books… like God and the Astronomers- – – Where an agnostic astronomer, Robert Jastrow (founder of Goddard Institute of Space Studies), looks at the evidence, and then sums up, 'There are super-natural forces at work.'

I take it you are a scientific mind, are you not? I too am a scientific mind, I find true fact pleasing and joyful, so I encourage you to read a few books.

I think a few of these books should be good for you.

God and the Astronomers – Robert Jastrow

And later if you decide you are interested in figuring what 'super-natural forces' are at work, I encourage you to read this book – – –

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist – Dr. Norman Guisler, Frank Turek

I encourage you greatly to at least please skim through the evidence.

PS: I'm not trying for the Nobel Prize, these facts are already founded by a few people.

I say to you, please read some of the books I have put up before you criticize the Old Testament, you might be surprised too see where the evidence leads, I was when I saw the evidence and converted to Christianity.

[Irene]

Quote (Enochs author @ July 08 2008,23:38)

Thanks all for comments.  I retire and shall no longer frequent this site.  I can see what I'm up against.  I retire a defeated man.

Why do you give up so quickly, you just joined here? Stu is the only Atheist here. Ignore Him if He bothers you. In fact Scripture tells you to do just that.
John 1:7-11
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. I do not believe in Evolution tho.

[kejonn]

Just because you believe one way or other does not make it true/false .

[Stu]

Hi Theologian-and-Apologist

Quote

Well, I have evidence in my view I say. Truly, it is correct.

OK. Of the pieces of evidence that directly contradict Darwin, which do you think is the single most convincing one?

Stuart

[Theologian-and-Apologist]

Okay, I'm going to un-load a whole packet on you…

Yes, truth is never decided on 'majority vote' or by someone saying 'I believe!' Truth is decided, basically, by trueness, or however you want to put it, absolute truth does exist, like Stu has an avatar, and I am typing this message.

I will now inform you on the Miller-Urey Experiment…

In Miller's experiment he produced amino acids, the basic building block for all life, but this does not make abiogenesis possible.

Miller while in his experiment simulated the described 'old earth.' Except for one crucial thing. Oxygen. The oxygen if put into the experiment would kill the amino acids because oxygen has been found detrimental with amino acids and organic molecules. There is good evidence that if the old earth idea was true, then there would have been oxygen, making Miller's experiment a total flaw.

Let's say for sake of argument that Miller had his way, no oxygen at 'old earth creation time.' He would still not have life because of a few issues, take this little example. . . Let's say you have all the things needed to make a Toyota Priase (popular car on the market, nice fuel economy, right?) and you just dumped it all over the ground, there is a greater chance that the car would assemble it's self randomly then for the amino acids to form and make life, because you don't only need materials, but you need DNA or RNA to create life. The chances of the DNA (or RNA) forming is slim, if not impossible.
Plus, based of the Law of Entropy, which I will say is a definite truth, it only makes it harder. The Law of Entropy is basically that the amount of energy is gradually running low, as in nature disorders, and all energy will eventually end. Now for a DNA and RNA to form naturally, because the Entropy tears it slowly apart, it has to be fed energy. To be fed energy is must have an 'engine' of some sort, if you get my terminology, if not I'm meaning something to get the energy. However, when it comes to the naturalistic formation of DNA and RNA they do not have an 'engine' So according to Entropy, this is a lose/lose situation.

Thank you if you read through all of that, if you want more I can give you more things. The fun part about being religious is you can also be scientific.

[Stu]

Hi Theologian / Apologist

I believe your points have been addressed already in this thread, but here is a quick recap:

1. Miller and Urey were right to leave oxygen out of their experiment. Free oxygen was not present in the atmosphere until the appearance of photosynthetic organisms around 2.5 billion years ago.
2. I don’t think Miller or Urey expected to create life. The fact that they made amino acids is striking enough. I know of no speculation about abiogenesis that requires a fully-coding RNA molecule to arise by chance. What function would it perform? The only ability the first ‘molecule of life’ would need would be the capacity for self-replication. This is a quite plausible result of blind chemistry. It did not necessarily imply RNA or amino acid polymerisation.
3. Your ‘law of entropy’ is properly called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In an open system such as the biosphere, there is nothing stopping the spontaneous appearance of order (think of crystal growth), you just have to pay for it with some disorder somewhere else.

You my be interested to know that the creationist apologist organisation Answers in Genesis recommends that creationists not use the entropy argument because it is wrong.

Stuart

[Stu]

…I forgot to add that your arguments are about abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Hey Stu, just a quick question about the singularity that keeps on expanding and coming up with all this neat design and stuff. Can some call him Father Christmas or Santa, coz this amazing singularity keeps giving out all these neat presents like super bodies and brains, as well as some pretty amazing natural stuff and rainbows and things.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2008,11:32)

Just because you believe one way or other does not make it true/false .

That is correct. If you don't believe in God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. If you believe that God is a nasty being, then that doesn't make it so too.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ July 15 2008,06:32)

Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2008,11:32) Just because you believe one way or other does not make it true/false . That is correct. If you don't believe in God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. If you believe that God is a nasty being, then that doesn't make it so too.

Or you can believe He is NOT a nasty being, and can believe that some texts make Him out to be a nasty being. Not God's fault.

[charity]

Or you can examine the whole creating of God to be no more than, substance of everything living?
And not responsible for the earth those men are the lords of?
Whom those lords that wrote on his behalf to us in past times, secondary gods, to hold faith in,
God a substance of nature, that could arise in fury and power at anytime, and consume lives by means of “natural” disasters, even so may not deliberate, but will be avouched as so by the brutal controllers, whom perverted hate for God, creates him a reputation.

I am searching at this time, so please don't take the privilege of assuming my faith from my writings, it could be well wrong..

Charity

[Stu]

Or the Abrahamic god is an ancient Jewish invention imposed by assimilation on ancient Middle Eastern polytheistic tribes and the delusion still holds willable people in its thrall to this day.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ July 15 2008,23:01)

Hey Stu, just a quick question about the singularity that keeps on expanding and coming up with all this neat design and stuff. Can some call him Father Christmas or Santa, coz this amazing singularity keeps giving out all these neat presents like super bodies and brains, as well as some pretty amazing natural stuff and rainbows and things.

I have already given a very good account. How about you tell us how your Santa Claus figure gave us all these presents. 'He' must have one heck of an army of elves working for him. But then, what army of elves made the army of elves? What previous Santa gave us this one?

This current Santa is faulty – he misreads the 'need for justice' as an opportunity to smite people. Could we exchange him for a just Santa do you think?

I suppose one day people will follow the advice given in Corinthians and grow up, leaving the things of chilhood behind.

Stuart

[charity]

Quote (Stu @ July 16 2008,11:10)

Or the Abrahamic god is an ancient Jewish invention imposed by assimilation on ancient Middle Eastern polytheistic tribes and the delusion still holds willable people in its thrall to this day. Stuart

I think that’s a very fare thought Stuart, in all fairness towards judgment,  I fear the power of  what has been passed down, is so great in size with the extra added delusions, that any other would neither be left root nor an option and any contary thought would be stolen away before it conceived. due to the flood leaving one faith one rock, Anyone one temped to search after its wisdom may be regarded as faithless against such forces and powers.
yet the end is consumed by the whole world drinking from a cup, giving attention is required, even thou they followed not after it, yet it pursued after to destroy life.- charity

[Author]

Posts