- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
So t8 in your view which new species are created by divine intervention and which arise by descent with modification?
There is a biblical principle that says life begets life which you seem to be denying. Can you show me the scripture that says god creates new species all the time?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2009,07:08) So t8 in your view which new species are created by divine intervention and which arise by descent with modification? There is a biblical principle that says life begets life which you seem to be denying. Can you show me the scripture that says god creates new species all the time?
Stuart
Sure !!! It is called creation….He is God and although there are those that do not believe he exists..Which incidently..really does not matter…He is still thee creator of life and all that is…and a time will come when every knee will bend and every head will bow….Waffle waffle, theodorej. Can you show me the scripture? Genesis says that god told everything to go forth and multiply, and as far as I am aware that is the last act of creation of plant and animal species mentioned.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 22 2009,10:39) Waffle waffle, theodorej. Can you show me the scripture? Genesis says that god told everything to go forth and multiply, and as far as I am aware that is the last act of creation of plant and animal species mentioned. Stuart
Greetings Stu…. Iam not a parot of chapter and verse…I study the scripture I do not memorize it for the purpose of recitation….Creator…One who creates….I fail to see the time constraint…..The constant regeneration of life in conjunction with death is the manesfestation of the original creation and the continuation of the same….Would like some syrup on your waffles….Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 28 2009,13:01) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 22 2009,10:39) Waffle waffle, theodorej. Can you show me the scripture? Genesis says that god told everything to go forth and multiply, and as far as I am aware that is the last act of creation of plant and animal species mentioned. Stuart
Greetings Stu…. Iam not a parot of chapter and verse…I study the scripture I do not memorize it for the purpose of recitation….Creator…One who creates….I fail to see the time constraint…..The constant regeneration of life in conjunction with death is the manesfestation of the original creation and the continuation of the same….Would like some syrup on your waffles….
So you have made up your own creation mythology then. Each to their own I suppose, but I hope you are not expecting anyone to take it seriously.Stuart
Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 28 2009,13:04) Hey Stu…. This day… 22 Aug 1969 was my last day of active duty in the US Army…..40 years Phew!!
Cripes. I was one year old.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 28 2009,23:24) Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 28 2009,13:04) Hey Stu…. This day… 22 Aug 1969 was my last day of active duty in the US Army…..40 years Phew!!
Cripes. I was one year old.Stuart
respect your elders!!….. Let us continue with our reasonable discourse….Quote (Stu @ Aug. 28 2009,23:23) Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 28 2009,13:01) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 22 2009,10:39) Waffle waffle, theodorej. Can you show me the scripture? Genesis says that god told everything to go forth and multiply, and as far as I am aware that is the last act of creation of plant and animal species mentioned. Stuart
Greetings Stu…. Iam not a parot of chapter and verse…I study the scripture I do not memorize it for the purpose of recitation….Creator…One who creates….I fail to see the time constraint…..The constant regeneration of life in conjunction with death is the manesfestation of the original creation and the continuation of the same….Would like some syrup on your waffles….
So you have made up your own creation mythology then. Each to their own I suppose, but I hope you are not expecting anyone to take it seriously.Stuart
Stu…. Mythology…..The term seems to suggest questionable credability….The creation is before us and it is indeed a wonder from its most minutte living organism to the cosmos in its entirety….The issue is not the creation….The problem is the denial of the creator….I cannot understand how anybody who is interlectually honest can dismiss the coordinated theme of the creation to the results of an explosion….I can't see how anyone who is intellectually honest can make creationist claims about supernatural events when the very definition of the word supernatural takes those alleged events outside our ability to observe.
The word mythology does imply skepticism. The “creation” is no such thing. There is no creator to deny! From 10^-13 seconds after the big bang, there is no need for any gods if you want to explain origins. In any case creationism explains nothing about the universe at all. That is why the particle sought by the Large Hadron Collider is the one postulated to be observable in that tiny fraction of a second after the universe began and is called the god particle. It is really a god of the gaps particle.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 30 2009,13:38) I can't see how anyone who is intellectually honest can make creationist claims about supernatural events when the very definition of the word supernatural takes those alleged events outside our ability to observe. The word mythology does imply skepticism. The “creation” is no such thing. There is no creator to deny! From 10^-13 seconds after the big bang, there is no need for any gods if you want to explain origins. In any case creationism explains nothing about the universe at all. That is why the particle sought by the Large Hadron Collider is the one postulated to be observable in that tiny fraction of a second after the universe began and is called the god particle. It is really a god of the gaps particle.
Stuart
I can't help feeling that all we'll do is perhaps wind it back a little further, perhaps to 10^-17 seconds or something.However, it is probably about as extreme conditions as you can get in terms of physics (the early universe) and there's still a lot we don't understand about the present day universe.
It reminds me a bit of the atom – indivisible and fundamental, but then we divided it – then protons, neutrons and electrons – but then quarks came along… at least you know you're probably on the right tracks when it's easier to build on what you know than to throw it out and start again.
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 30 2009,13:38) I can't see how anyone who is intellectually honest can make creationist claims about supernatural events when the very definition of the word supernatural takes those alleged events outside our ability to observe. The word mythology does imply skepticism. The “creation” is no such thing. There is no creator to deny! From 10^-13 seconds after the big bang, there is no need for any gods if you want to explain origins. In any case creationism explains nothing about the universe at all. That is why the particle sought by the Large Hadron Collider is the one postulated to be observable in that tiny fraction of a second after the universe began and is called the god particle. It is really a god of the gaps particle.
Stuart
Greetings Stu….. The universe is a reality before our eyes that represents order in every way…An explosion is the antithesis…an explosion is representative of chaos and a total lack of order…Mans knowledge of the universe is so limited…it is only his vanity that produces the grandeous theories that we equate to science and disguise as fact or shall I say bad education..Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 09 2009,01:25) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 30 2009,13:38) I can't see how anyone who is intellectually honest can make creationist claims about supernatural events when the very definition of the word supernatural takes those alleged events outside our ability to observe. The word mythology does imply skepticism. The “creation” is no such thing. There is no creator to deny! From 10^-13 seconds after the big bang, there is no need for any gods if you want to explain origins. In any case creationism explains nothing about the universe at all. That is why the particle sought by the Large Hadron Collider is the one postulated to be observable in that tiny fraction of a second after the universe began and is called the god particle. It is really a god of the gaps particle.
Stuart
Greetings Stu….. The universe is a reality before our eyes that represents order in every way…An explosion is the antithesis…an explosion is representative of chaos and a total lack of order…Mans knowledge of the universe is so limited…it is only his vanity that produces the grandeous theories that we equate to science and disguise as fact or shall I say bad education..
So you are reefing off at the most objective view we can possibly have of the universe, the work of some of the most brilliant minds, working honestly and by the strict rules of provenance and confidence prescribed by the scientific method, being the state-of-the-art understanding…and you are not putting up a better explanation for what we observe?Isn't that just a bit disingenuous?
This was no ordinary explosion.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 28 2009,23:24) Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 28 2009,13:04) Hey Stu…. This day… 22 Aug 1969 was my last day of active duty in the US Army…..40 years Phew!!
Cripes. I was one year old.Stuart
1 Year earlier.“Congrats Mrs Stu, you have a healthy baby ape.”
Things evolve within their own species. A cat will always look like a cat from the cat family. That is the only evolution we see. We will never see an ape in the stages of becoming a man. I Thought this theory was pretty much dismissed by scientists today. As well as the little spermy fish, crawling up out of some primordial slime to become a man. Good grief. And yet they think we are nuts for believing in a wonderful designer of the Universe. Where did DNA come from? Don't you think that is a little bit complex to just happen by random chance.
Okay, I didn't read all this thread, so if this is not what you were talking about, just ignore me and my two cents.eveh
Quote Things evolve within their own species.
And eventually into new species.Quote A cat will always look like a cat from the cat family.
Do you mean domesticated cats? Do you know how long those cats have looked the way they do?Quote That is the only evolution we see. We will never see an ape in the stages of becoming a man.
When we look into the past, we see it has definitely happened. In fact humans are a species of great ape anyway.Quote I Thought this theory was pretty much dismissed by scientists today.
As, tragically do millions like you. Thankfully reality is not a democracy.Quote As well as the little spermy fish, crawling up out of some primordial slime to become a man. Good grief.
Indeed, good grief. Is that what you think evolution by natural selection says?Quote And yet they think we are nuts for believing in a wonderful designer of the Universe.
Not the theistic ones. But I think you are bonkers for holding tight to a religious creation fantasy story.Quote Where did DNA come from? Don't you think that is a little bit complex to just happen by random chance.
Yes. But then evolution is not random chance.Quote Okay, I didn't read all this thread, so if this is not what you were talking about, just ignore me and my two cents.
No, please do investigate it to your full ability, not just here on Heavennet. You will be amazed by just how wrong you are, but astonished at the story of how you really came to be here.Stuart
Poor Stu.
He ate the evolution lie hook, line, and sinker.
He believes he is an ape that will die and become nothing.And while he exists as a blip in the scheme of all things, he proudly claims that there is no God/designer.
He says this while possessing less than .0000000000000005% of all knowledge in the universe and 0% knowledge outside of the universe.Stu, if we appear for a micro-second in the scheme of things, what does it matter? Might as well be crazy. It won't make one ounce of difference to anything in your understanding of the universe.
Whereas, those who are wise acknowledge God, are encouraged to live their lives in a good way, knowing that one day they will be judged and that life is eternal for those who are righteous.
Just as energy cannot be destroyed, some of us will not be destroyed by death.
The universe is a majestic thing, full of wonder and beauty. The awe I feel in its regard springs from the fact that it is the consistent application of the laws of physics that results in the structure of the universe and everything in it, impartially and utterly consistently. It is surprising but contains no surprises, consistent although no two objects are identical.
To think that there is a potentially devious deity pulling strings behind the scenes in a manner that we cannot possibly understand robs the universe of its wonder. Such a universe is ugly, it smacks of favour and reprisal and capriciousness and places humans in an absurd position of prominence. To think the universe was created with you “in mind” is totally inconsistent with its wider nature. In fact the only possibilities are that there is no deity, or there is a deity but it does nothing at all in this beautiful universe, or that it is the ugly universe of the deceiving god. That is because there is no observation we have made that unambiguously points to any action of a benevolent god that is any suspension of the laws of physics as they appear to work.
That we appear as thinking, reasoning humans for a tiny fraction of the history of our universe with a brain capable of some analysis of it is an astonishing piece of good fortune, compromised though it is by the fact that natural selection has given us brains susceptible to delusions of the supernatural and other fantasies. People who are careless enough to allow their brains to be taken over by the philosophy of man that goes “there is something inherently wrong with you but if you believe the absurdity that a man died 2000 years ago to cure you of this symptomless illness then you will live forever” are soiling the beauty with their artificial mythology.
To say “I don't know” is honest; to claim that there are meddling but incomprehensible gods that created the unimaginably vast cosmos but retain a special and judgemental interest in humans, is quite frankly stupid. To claim to know what they want everyone to do is dishonest.
Stuart
You need to read info. on http://www.Gotquestions.org Is God imaginary?” Interesting!!
Answer: Godisimaginary.com is not the first to claim that God is imaginary. In an article entitled “Theology and Falsification” written many years ago, Anthony Flew, one of the twentieth century’s most outspoken atheists wrote,
Two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. . . . Yet still the believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, who comes secretly to look after the garden he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs. “But what remains of the original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”
Following Flew’s thoughts from decades ago, the web site godisimaginary.com provides what it believes are 50 “proofs” that God does not exist – that He is nothing more than an imaginary gardener, a superstition, a myth. The site claims, “Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's 'God,' nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists.”
Actually, when a person thinks as a rational person and tosses away any preconceived bias and baggage that’s held, one must disagree with the site’s assertions and instead reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist.
Addressing each of the 50 points is unnecessary as it doesn’t matter if the site had 50,000 “proof” points against God; all one needs to do is use a logical, rational, and reasonable argument to show that God does indeed exist and every point becomes irrelevant. It is telling and interesting that godisimaginary.com focuses so much of its time on red herrings of issues with prayer and why God won’t do tricks upon request, and ignores the primary question of philosophy and religion: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” In other words, like Flew, the site concentrates on issues with a gardener they believe to be imaginary and ignores the question of why a garden exists in the first place.
The only place on the site where a possible answer to this question is offered is “proof” point 47. Complexity, says the site, could only arise from either Nature itself or a Creator. “Proof” point 47 then states, “The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.”
This assertion and conclusion is flawed as they have proposed two explanations and then bundle a third option into the solution they like – spontaneous generation with an eternal universe. An eternal universe is, initially, a logical option but not spontaneous generation, which is a scientific term for something coming from nothing or self-creation, which is an analytically false statement – that is, a statement that shows itself to be false by definition. A fundamental law of science is ex nihilo nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing comes. And as Aristotle said, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” The web site derides Christians for believing in magic, yet it embraces greater magic than anything found in the Bible – life just appearing out of nothing from non-life with no cause.
Next, their argument ignores the basic laws of causality – an effect must resemble its cause. How can an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe accidentally create beings who are full of personality and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morality? It can’t. Further, intelligence doesn’t arise from non-intelligence, which is why even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth, which of course, begs the question of who engineered that superior alien race. Godisimaginary.com claims, “No intelligence is required to encode DNA,” but refuting this statement is the very co-discoverer of DNA himself – Francis Crick – who admits there is no way for DNA to have arisen apart from intelligence.
But what of evolution? Doesn’t evolution explain life and intelligence? Not at all. Evolution is a biological process that attempts to describe change in already existing life forms – it has no way to answer the question of existence. This one piece of evidence alone began to turn Anthony Flew away from atheism.
These facts being evident, it then becomes quite easy to offer a simple, reasonable, logical proof for God in the following way:
1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator existsThe only premise that can be attacked is premise five, but the fact is every drop of evidence in the possession of science points to the fact that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Any fanciful assertions of collapsing universes, imaginary time, and the like are just that – fanciful – and require more faith to than to believe in God. The two choices are simple – matter before mind or mind before matter – and it is interesting that this web site claims it is their intelligence that causes them to choose the former over the latter.
“But who created God?” the site asks. Why not ask, “Where is the bachelor’s wife?” or “What does the color blue taste like?” It’s a category mistake – you don’t make the unmade. Further, why sit back comfortably and believe in an unmade universe and yet angrily bristle at the notion of an unmade Creator? Could it be because mindless matter cannot call human beings into moral account whereas a personal God can? Finally, is it more reasonable to embrace a cause that contains none of the characteristics of its effect (personality, love, meaning, purpose, etc.) or a cause that embodies them all (a personal God)? The site claims, “In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary,” but in reality, logic, reason, and evidence disprove their position and point in the absolute other direction.
The conclusion is that a personal Creator exists. Moreover, this Being who created everything mirrors the God described in the Bible quite well as evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws wo
uld have been given).The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile. At this point, all 50 “proofs” on the web site become irrelevant – God exists; therefore, all points offered on the site are incorrect in the final conclusion that they collectively try to reach. Wondering why God won’t cure all the cancer in the world because a group of Christians prayed for it, pointing out the divorce rate among Christians, scoffing because God doesn’t create money for churches out of thin air, wondering why Jesus never moved a physical mountain, asserting a false dichotomy that says a person must be a person of facts or of faith (many brilliant scientists believe in God), making unprovable claims that Jesus never did a concrete miracle, and erroneously stating that the Bible “advocates” senseless murder, slavery, and oppression of women – all end up being impotent in light of the conclusion that a creator God exists.
Answering such objections – if they are genuine and not extended in a way that refuses to believe even if reasoned responses are given – requires only the disciplined study of Scripture alongside the Spirit of God who inspired it. Arguments with those who possess a hardened skeptical spirit are to be avoided as 1 Timothy 6:20 says, “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge.'” But even still, God is fully capable of using His powerful general revelation (the creation) to witness to those who appear completely lost due to a skeptical and hardened heart.
In stark contrast to the article he'd written many years earlier, in 2007, Anthony Flew wrote a much different kind of book entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In it, he recounts his atheism and relays how he now, because of evidence and reason, believes that a creator God exists. The one who initially posited an “imaginary gardener” now says, “I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.” This being the case, one thing is certain – the 50 frail attempts on godisimaginary.com to prove that God is imaginary fall far short of even causing a nick on the armor of evidence that opposes them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
