Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by nophun


Interesting video there nophun, but lacks substance if your intention was to educate. If on the other hand your goal was to poke fun of Creation, funny but weak presentation imho. Why? Read on please.

Hello, edmc.
I agree the video I posted lacked substance. I did not post it to be educational. Lets go farther into your post and see if we can explain why I posted that video.

He always existed. He always was.

WTF ! I will need some proof of this, please .. Oh there is more.

edmc: What kind of proof are you looking for?

In fact the Bible speaks of him as being ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’ He was the great supreme cause. Thus He was the 'always-existing first cause.’

No the bible is really not creditable on any level.
The bible is loaded with contradictions and just unbelievable bull#. I will leave it at that for now ... oh there is more.

edmc2: fair enuff since you don't believe in it. Let's use science and logic.

here's my Q:
Think again of the formula E=mc2, another side of it is the Einstein’s special theory of relativity, published in June 1905, disagreed with a fundamental belief of scientists such as Isaac Newton—that the measurement of time is a constant throughout the universe. The implications of Einstein’s now generally accepted theory seem quite bizarre.

For example, imagine that you and a friend perfectly synchronize your watches. Your friend then flies around the world, while you stay at home. When he returns, the time displayed by his watch will lag a fraction behind the time shown on your watch. From your perspective, time slowed down for your traveling friend. The difference is, of course, infinitesimal at human speeds. However, when approaching the speed of light, not only does time slow down significantly but objects also become smaller and their mass increases. Einstein’s theory maintained that the speed of light, not time, is constant across the universe.

Yet we believe this concept.

Consider this too: According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns—dark matter and dark energy (latest terminology the Great RIP) — appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!

Do you believe they exist? Many in the scientific community believe it even though no one have seen it, where to find it or what is it.

Now if you are able to grasp the examples I've mentioned above and have no problem believing them, why is it too hard to believe then in an "always-existing first cause"?

Now, is it scientific? Of course! Proof? There's so many - see the examples I’ve already provided (E=mc2/dark energy/dark matter/infinity) for starters.

What ?

Okay you know what? Your post is TL,DR

I get the just of it.
Basically because you do not know, or even we (humans) don't understand something .. "God did it" ?

edmc2: Of course it's impossible to know everything, that is why I've used what is already known and understood to be factual.

Gee wonder why I posted that video above.
Yes .. yes, I agree a complete lack of substance.

This is what I got from your full posting.

edmc^2 : IDK, must be #ing magic, yo!

edmc2: usually when people can't grasp a concept - they start cursing and start using the word 'magic'.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by nophun]

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by nophun


Any idea nophun who was the "Great Designer" Prof. Sagan was reffering to?

I'm curious.

Also any idea why the great Dr. Sagan said that " The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer"?

ty,
edmc2



[edit on 10-8-2010 by edmc^2]

reply to post by edmc^2


So I will assume you never actually read the book ?

Sagan was talking about the "Great Designer" as a answer to questions we did not have answers to. He goes on to tell how Darwin and Wallace had another answer, (Direct quote from Cosmos by Carl Sagan) "natural selection, which makes the music of life more beautiful as the aeons pass."

Read the book or at least the chapter you will see Sagan is using "Great Designer" as a failed alternative to reality.

YOU CANT JUST TAKE 2 F WORDS ("Great Designer") OUT OF THE WHOLE BOOK AND SAY THE AUTHOR BELIEVES IN GOD !

[edit on 10-8-2010 by nophun]

T. H. Huxley, the most effective nineteenthcentury
defender and popularizer of
evolution, wrote that the publications of Darwin and Wallace were a ‘flash of light,
which to a man who has lost himself in a dark night, suddenly reveals a road which,
whether it takes him straight home or not, certainly goes his way .... My reflection,
when I first made myself master of the central idea of the ‘Origin of Species,’ was,
‘How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!’ I suppose that Columbus’
companions said much the same .... The facts of variability, of the struggle for
existence, of adaptation to conditions, were notorious enough; but none of us had
suspected that the road to the heart of the species problem lay through them, until
Darwin and Wallace dispelled the darkness.’
Many people were scandalized some
still are at
both ideas, evolution and
natural selection. Our ancestors looked at the elegance of life on Earth, at how
appropriate the structures of organisms are to their functions, and saw evidence for a
Great Designer. The simplest onecelled
organism is a far more complex machine than
the finest pocket watch. And yet pocket watches do not spontaneously selfassemble,
or evolve, in slow stages, on their own, from, say, grandfather clocks. A watch implies
a watchmaker. There seemed to be no way in which atoms and molecules could
somehow spontaneously fall together to create organisms of such awesome complexity
and subtle functioning as grace every region of the Earth. That each living thing was
specially designed, that one species did not become another, were notions perfectly
consistent with what our ancestors with their limited historical records knew about life.
The idea that every organism was meticulously constructed by a Great Designer
provided a significance and order to nature and an importance to human beings that we
crave still. A Designer is a natural, appealing and altogether human explanation of the
biological world. But, as Darwin and Wallace showed, there is another way, equally
appealing, equally human, and far more compelling: natural selection, which makes the
music of life more beautiful as the aeons pass.
The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer;
perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them,
and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little
disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely
competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The
fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features
inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more
remote and indirect temperament).

That is the page. Now try to spin.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by edmc^2


Ed, I gotta say, you state your case very well. But there was a few things I thought of when I brought this topic up to a friend...

IF we are made by such an intelligent design, why do we have organs which have no use?

Take, for example, your appendix..
It has no function and many people get it removed on account of appendicitis.

Things like wisdom teeth, tonsils, and adenoids are also taken out when need be

Did you know we have a tail bone??
Its called the coccyx. (I had to look that one up)
Its a small tail like bone thats sticks out a little where a tail would be if we had one.

We also have a third eyelid (If you look in the corner of your eye touching your nose you'll see it) which is also found on reptilians.

You know goosebumps?
They're called erector pili.
Have you ever seen when a cat hisses it hunches its back and its hair stands up making it look bigger?
Thats them.

If you do not believe this is the result of evolution, then please read this..

Lets back-track to mere carbon atoms on the Earth's surface, 3.5 billion years ago.
This is when life is said to have begun, starting with just single cell organisms.


Every living thing on this Earth is made up of billions upon billions of cells coexisting to form an organism.
In these cells are strands of DNA that technically tell it what to do, simply speaking.
DNA is the instruction booklet for life, do you not agree?
DNA strands are made up of different proteins which are just molecules made up of carbon and other atoms

Now I wish I could show you this, but I couldn't find it on YouTube..
I remember watching a video in my Biology 2 class that showed scientists recreating earths conditions (heat, oxygen levels, etc.) and eventually proteins were formed from seemingly nothing

The first organisms were simple bacteria that could withstand the harsh environment of Earth at the time. They thrived and released oxygen into the atmosphere making it suitable for life.

Blada blada blada...

We came to be starting with simple little atoms that make up much of our world today.

The fact is, I do believe that it is all by sheer chance that we turned out the way we did. The conditions were right on earth and life snowballed out off control. Humans became self aware, unlike their animal counterparts, and thought, "There must be something greater than this place". Most religions have the same concept, that some powerful being put us on this Earth in his image and If we resist our animal instincts, we will live with him in a place that seems perfect compared to where we are now. I hope you don't feel like I'm poking fun at your beliefs, I am just stating how I believe the Earth began and I'm looking forward to hearing your response.

reply to post by edmc^2

He always existed. He always was.

That's quite an outrageous statement given we have no proof whatsoever for "intelligent design" or the existence of a god. Those facts don't change even if you put the text in a larger font size and format it bold

Still believe what you see around you is "intelligent" design? Think again!

reply to post by edmc^2


I believe due t the complexity of our entire universe and everything in it, that i don't have an answer as to if we were created or just formed spontaenously.

Just like i can't be sure if we are in a matrix or not, i haven't been offered the blue or red pill yet, believe me ill take the red.
We are still in the attempt at answering this question as a race...we don't know for sure thats why its mostly theories and not fact.

Logic dictates that:
If you have all the facts then you will have the answer.
If you don't have all the facts your left with possibilities.
If you have no facts, all your left with is assumption.

Your comparisons are like comparing apples to oranges. Robots were made by man, the universe is massive and quite alot more complex then a robot. Any comparison you gave, the former was always much more complex.

reply to post by nophun


Thanks for uploading the Cosmos page nophun and you are correct. I haven't read Dr. Sagan's entire book (yet) but I've watch (pretty much most if not) all of the series he made when he was still alive – Cosmos. From there I've read more about him while doing research. That's where I found one of his statements when I was researching the subject on 'fossil' records.
As for your statement that I was spinning what he said, no such motive on my part since I have the utmost respect for him and his work. As a matter of fact I've learned a lot from him growing up and still do along with other great men of science.
Thus the intent of the quote was to show that even him – a legendary Astrophysicist/biologist has to come to a conclusion that life requires a designer – be it of an alien origin or something else. Nor the intent was to show that he a 'theist' (in fact he an atheist). If you read throughout my postings with his name in tag – the subject always deals with the origin of life, not to show or spin that somehow he believed in a divine being. Reason also why I asked if you have any idea of what he meant by a “Great Designer”.

And like what I said he's not the only one who admitted this:
Note the following quotations from other scientist (again).

BTW: Any idea why these statements are not brought up in schools nor on approved school textbooks? Could it be that somehow it might put doubts to the minds of students and start questioning the 'evidence'?

Here's one:
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:

“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

→ Q: how much of a 'fossil' evidence is available to us today since the conception of the evolution theory? Any idea?
With the passage of time, surely we should have enuff evidence to silence any doubters.

Here's another:
A View of Life states:

“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Another:
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote:

“Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

And another:
Zoologist Harold Coffin states:

“If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

So if the fossil record is as what most 'evolutionist' claim. Why is it that the evidence gathered do not support it (according to the quotes above).

Expanding this further – to me if the earth is around 4B (Gyr) it should contain the evidence we expect! Yet according to their findings, they say that somewhere around “10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”

This is like looking or walking 7/8 of a full socker field but only in the 1/8th part of the field is where life “made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet” (a very small segment in comparison), the other 7/8th is blank. Yet evolutionists, still hold on the idea that somehow, somewhere in time, life evolved from an 'organic soup' then climbed up the 'evolution ladder' to the present stage.

The evidence is so shaky that the facts are not widely publicized but are hidden from the public. But by careful research and analysis of the data, one can come to a conclusion that 'evolution' is based not on LOGIC imho but DESIRE, for it takes desire to believe something that is scientifically illogic.

There's more that I can include here but the conclusion is still the same - that life can only can from life. (see my post on page xxx for the latest findings)

Another Q if you don't mind / have time:

Any idea why Dr. Sagan said the following (I have mine but would like to know yours first).

“The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer”.


And lastly with regards to extra-terrestial life (exobiology) any idea why Dr. Sagan said the following:

“If we started the earth all over again, even with the same physical conditions, and just let random factors operate, we would never get anything remotely resembling human beings. There are just too many accidents in our evolutionary past for things closely resembling human beings to arise anywhere else.”—“Time,” December 13, 1971, p. 55.

If ‘it could never happen again on the earth,’ how, then, can evolutionists really expect intelligent life to evolve on other planets, which are far less hospitable?


Ty,
edmc2

additional reading and further discussion on fossil records : NAS (National Academy of Science)

reply to post by wheredacheesego


you said:

Ed, I gotta say, you state your case very well. But there was a few things I thought of when I brought this topic up to a friend...

IF we are made by such an intelligent design, why do we have organs which have no use?

Take, for example, your appendix..
It has no function and many people get it removed on account of appendicitis.

Things like wisdom teeth, tonsils, and adenoids are also taken out when need be

Did you know we have a tail bone??
Its called the coccyx. (I had to look that one up)
Its a small tail like bone thats sticks out a little where a tail would be if we had one.

We also have a third eyelid (If you look in the corner of your eye touching your nose you'll see it) which is also found on reptilians.

You know goosebumps?
They're called erector pili.
Have you ever seen when a cat hisses it hunches its back and its hair stands up making it look bigger?
Thats them.

Wheresdacheesgo – let me just re-post a snipit (w/edits/italics) of a reply that I posted a while back - similar to your Q.

(topic related to the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve).

... speaking of mistakes may I ask you this, do you still subscribe to the now debunked evolutionary belief/teaching called “vestigial organs”? If you do, too bad, you've been lied to (again)...

For those [of you] who don't know what it is, according evolutionist, these were the last vestiges of organs on homo-sapiens. They claimed that these organs were once supposedly had a use, but because of the claimed advance up the evolutionary ladder they were no longer needed. Thus they are called “vestigial organs”- left over organs.

In fact according to claims there were about 180 of these “vestigial organs” but I'll just cite a few here.

Take for example the small gland that is shaped like a pinecone and hence called the “pineal” gland. It was claimed that though it is located near the center of the brain, it is not part of the brain." It was thought that “the pineal in man served no biologic purpose and was merely a vestige,” reported the journal Hospital Practice. Now the pineal has been shown

“to possess a unique ability to produce melatonin.”

According to studies this is a substance that affects the brain, the reproductive system, as well as the pituitary, adrenal and thyroid glands. Thus Science Digest (1972) now say that the pineal gland “exerts a control over the body, specifically by regulating the body clock.”.

Another gland long thought to be useless is the thymus. In an article entitled “The ‘Useless’ Gland That Guards Our Health,” Reader’s Digest stated:

“For at least 2000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of a pinkish-grey bit of tissue lying just below the neck and behind the breastbone—the thymus gland. . . . Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless, vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one.

“In the last few years, however, the dogged detective work of a small band of Americans, Britons, Australians and Swedes have cracked the thymus enigma. These men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases. . . .
“But is the thymus the only organ regulating our immunity system? Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils and adenoids [once these too were tagged as vestigial] may also figure in the antibody responses.”.

So based on these few examples do you think there’s a valid reason why the “recurrent laryngeal nerve” was designed that way?
...

Point is, just because we can't understand the function of a 'thing' (organ) doesn't mean that it has no purpose or a mistake especially when it deals with life.

Next you said:

If you do not believe this is the result of evolution, then please read this..

Lets back-track to mere carbon atoms on the Earth's surface, 3.5 billion years ago.
This is when life is said to have begun, starting with just single cell organisms.

Every living thing on this Earth is made up of billions upon billions of cells coexisting to form an organism.
In these cells are strands of DNA that technically tell it what to do, simply speaking.
DNA is the instruction booklet for life, do you not agree?
DNA strands are made up of different proteins which are just molecules made up of carbon and other atoms

Now I wish I could show you this, but I couldn't find it on YouTube..
I remember watching a video in my Biology 2 class that showed scientists recreating earths conditions (heat, oxygen levels, etc.) and eventually proteins were formed from seemingly nothing

The first organisms were simple bacteria that could withstand the harsh environment of Earth at the time. They thrived and released oxygen into the atmosphere making it suitable for life.

Blada blada blada...

Totally agree that the DNA holds the blueprint / programming instructions
of life but that alone is not proof that it evolve. In fact it's the opposite, it proves the existence of an Intelligent Creator/Designer. It proves that 'CHANCE' is not the CAUSE of the origin of life. Why, even very well known and knowledgeable scientists in this field admit this.

Let me quote again their findings here (page 15 of this thread):

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years

“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.

With regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, Robert Shapiro from New York University says:

“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.

cont...

continuing...

We came to be starting with simple little atoms that make up much of our world today.

The fact is, I do believe that it is all by sheer chance that we turned out the way we did. The conditions were right on earth and life snowballed out off control. Humans became self aware, unlike their animal counterparts, and thought, "There must be something greater than this place". Most religions have the same concept, that some powerful being put us on this Earth in his image and If we resist our animal instincts, we will live with him in a place that seems perfect compared to where we are now. I hope you don't feel like I'm poking fun at your beliefs, I am just stating how I believe the Earth began and I'm looking forward to hearing your response.

No worry, I don't think you're poking fun of my belief, in fact I welcome anyone to question my belief – just like evolution – if it can't stand honest and intelligent scrutiny then it has no merit. But going back to what you said, if 'sheer chance' is what made life then why do many scientists say the opposite. As you've already noticed from what I've already quoted, here's some more (re-post):

Talking about RNA molecules, Prof. Shapiro says that:

“no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites". - Scientific American 2007 June p 48.”

As for the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks, he said that it

“is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck” Scientific American 2007 June p 47, 49-50.

Here's another probability comment from a researcher, Hubert P. Yockey, who supports evolution. He says:

“It is impossible that the origin of life was 'proteins first'” Information Theory, Evolution and the Theory of Life – by Hubert P. Yockey, 25505 p 182.

Scientific Note:
RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. Now let's assume despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did somehow appear by CHANCE in the SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME. How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating self-sustaining type of life?

Do you know? Any idea?

What do the experts say on these matters?

Dr. Carol Cleveland a member of NASA says:

“The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low”

She continuous:

“Yet, most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of the proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions the coordination will somehow take care of itself”

As for the current theories of how these building blocks could have arisen by chance, she says:

“None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”

Q: Are you aware of these findings and statements? Most important of all – do you believe their statements and findings.

Finally note this honest admission from a 2008 conference here in California:

Members of ISSOL (International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life) met ...in Berkeley, California, for their eighth conference. After acknowledging the need for a “self-critical stocktaking of achievements to date,” ISSOL cofounder Professor Klaus Dose stated in Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau, (a German scientific magazine) that years of research have brought evolutionists no closer to understanding the origin of life.

Professor Dose writes:

“Probably no discipline of natural science distinguishes itself by such a variety of contradictory ideas, hypotheses, and theories as does the whole field of the evolution of life. In 1986, more than 30 years after the initially promising start to the era of simulation experiments, we can hardly point to any more facts in explanation of the actual mechanism of the origin of life than Ernst Haeckel did 120 years ago. Unfortunately, it must be recognized that the products resulting from simulation experiments are, largely speaking, no closer to life than are the substances that make up coal tar.”

Similarly, New York University professor Irving Kristol wrote that

“the gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”

Any idea why these findings are not widely published in the MSM and newspapers?
So in light of these mounting facts and evidence about the origin of life, how firm is your belief that life originated through evolution (abiogenesis to some)?

As a believer of Creation my faith is fully in tack and growing stronger from continued study.

Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
How does believing in evolution disprove a creator??


Because evolution is not compatible with creation for many claim that creation is not scientific.

Consider this: as soon as you say you believe in Creation, evolution will break down. vise versa.

ty,

signing off...

[edit on 18-7-2010 by edmc^2]

I don't know how we can separate one from the other. I believe there is an intelligent consciousness and life evolved through this consciousness. Science and spirituality will merge, maybe when the human soul is discovered.

I believe some scientists believe in the god particle and this consciousness is in all things.

If we read the Enuma Elish, we see that life began in two kinds of water and the cosmos was in chaos. WATER! Water must have a consciousness or we wouldn't be able to change it's molecular form by just sending a glass of water positive thought. This is based on science. Evolution is an ongoing process, but unfortunately there is no direct link to Homo Erectus. If there is, where is it? Ida was not the link, as scientists first believed. How can it be so hard to find a link to Homo Erectus? Was there interference?

I see no way we can separate one from the other, because to do that would mean that an intelligent consciousness isn't contained in all things. For that matter, I don't understand why humans insist on separating themselves from an intelligent consciousness. Are we more than just flesh and blood? Maybe all the answers are contained in blood...or water.

We can always find information to support our own beliefs, but going beyond that is the larger quest.

While you show a lot of facts here that could support your theory, it is still just a theory. Unproven.
Fact is we can never fully achieve the answer, that is why this kind of thing gets debated tirelessly.
Its true, random chance can happen multiple times. All it takes is one random thing to happen to change the course of evolution for a species, some accident perhaps.

While it seems logical to us that we must have been created based on our limited thinking and observations, it does not always make it true.

We can observe only for so long, the only way to prove a theory is through testing it out in a real world scenario under the same exact conditions and after testing it multiple times, only then can you say your theory is correct.
Even then you have to be honest and ask yourself if your tests were accurate, for if it was off even a tiny bit it could throw off the entire experiment.

So until you can test your theory that evolution is definitely impossible which will make your argument fact, there is no point continuing the debate.
You make a fine argument though for the creationist side but to me, its only one of MANY possibilities.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by EspyderMan]

Originally posted by nophun
The simplest onecelled
organism is a far more complex machine than
the finest pocket watch.

Yes, I think much more can be discovered from algae.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

He always existed. He always was.

That's quite an outrageous statement given we have no proof whatsoever for "intelligent design" or the existence of a god. Those facts don't change even if you put the text in a larger font size and format it bold

Still believe what you see around you is "intelligent" design? Think again!

MrXYZ,
I find it both fascinating and puzzling, that it's hard for evolutionist to grasp the concept of an “Always-existing Entity” and find it “an outrageous statement”. Yet at the same time claim that 'evolution/abiogenesis' is based on science even though the facts as admitted by scientist does not fully support it.

For example, we are able to accept the concept of infinity – whether in science or in mathematics. We even have a symbol to represent it. Yet hard to fathom an 'always-existing' Creator – God?


We can fathom the mysteries of the universe itself, whether dark energy, dark matter, dark flow. We believe that 95% of the universe is composed of this stuff, yet it's hard to believe in an 'always-existing Creator'?

We understand the famous formula E=mc^2, that matter is a manipulation of energy. That according to astrophysicist, Josip Kleczek:

"Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy."

Yet, hard to believe that the source of this 'dynamic energy' / power is an 'always-existing Creator (Isa 40:26)?

Hard to believe imho if one don't want to accept and see the facts, but to those with humble heart they are naked and fully revealed.



As for the video above – I don't mean to be nit-picky but after watching it reminded of a story of a man who went to prove that Paris was an ugly place inhabited by ugly people. Sad part was, he was able to convinced his audience. You know how he did it? He visited ugly places, like the dump yards, went to very very poor areas, to places where the sick and the lame were living, to places inhabited by gangs and bums and anything that he thought and saw was ugly. He took pictures of all of them and made a movie. Then went back to his home country and showed it to his friends. Carefully explained to them that this is truly what Paris looked liked. Very ugly even dangerous to lived in. After wahtching the video and looking at the pictures, his friends were fully convinced of what they saw and heard - until another person showed them the many beautiful places, the beautiful gardens of Paris, the rivers, the food, the trees, the animals and the many many beautiful people that lived there. Then explained to them that even though there were places that are ugly, areas where poor people lived and places where the sick and the lame were being cared for they are small in comparison with vast areas that are nice and beautiful and that the majority of people are also beautiful in and out. He also added that the government have plans to take care of the problems. After that, the audience got the full picture that Paris is indeed a beautiful place.
Indeed Paris is a beautiful place! Do you agree MrXYZ?

Anyway what was the point of your video?

Speaking of the videos (page 16) – thank you very much for posting them, I appreciate it, they are very educational. It shows how science and technology advanced (evolved to you) throughout the years and how incorrect ideas and belief were (are being) corrected by true science.

I truly agree that when science is based on good logic the result is true science on the other hand if it is based on illogic/desire the result is junk science. Take for example the age of the universe and the earth, according to known facts the universe is believed to be 13 Gyr old while the earth is around 4 Gyr old – not 7000 or 10,000 or the ridiculous 7 day belief or a flat earth hanging on a back of a giant turtle. Nor the belief that life can come from non-life or the belief that modern man came from a creature known as the 'great ape', or that life was the product of an unintelligent 'blind chance', etc.

BTW, may I ask if you can answer my old question, I would like to hear your own input (if you want to - if not it's OK).

Without a creator, a first cause, a maker, can you tell me where would / did the very first matter / thing came from? What caused it to come about? Why did it come about?

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by EspyderMan


thanks for your post Espyderman (cool ATS name).

Consider these simple logic please:

With all the evidence and facts presented so far, it points to one logical explenation about the origin of life - that it is created by an Intelligent and loving creator - Jehovah God / Yahweh to some.

For if the universe and our being alive in it is accidental or by chance, our lives can have no LASTING meaning. Don't you agree?

BUT, if our life in the universe results from design, then it follows that there must be satisfying meaning to it.

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by nophun

 

As for your statement that I was spinning what he said, no such motive on my part since I have the utmost respect for him and his work. As a matter of fact I've learned a lot from him growing up and still do along with other great men of science.
Thus the intent of the quote was to show that even him – a legendary Astrophysicist/biologist has to come to a conclusion that life requires a designer – be it of an alien origin or something else.

Alien and/or God the whole point of your OP is flawed. If something that "looks designed needs a designer", that designer needs a designer. Saying "He always existed. He always was" is doing nothing but waste time. Carl Sagan once said "If we say "God" was always here, why not say the universe was always here?"

BTW: Any idea why these statements are not brought up in schools nor on approved school textbooks? Could it be that somehow it might put doubts to the minds of students and start questioning the 'evidence'?

Most of them are out of context or completely fabricated. The Carl Sagan quote you posted is a good example of this. As for the "the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution" quote I have no way of checking that source, but I do know the statement "still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution" statement is complete bull#.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I recommend you check out phylogenetic ancestry of the horse for a really good example.

en.wikipedia.org...

Moving on.

→ Q: how much of a 'fossil' evidence is available to us today since the conception of the evolution theory? Any idea? With the passage of time, surely we should have enuff evidence to silence any doubters.

We are still on this ?

Is elephants good enough ?
locolobo.org...

You have obviously never actually spent 10 minutes to look and see what fossils we have .. have you ?

“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Stephen Jay Gould .. Did you know he is a evolutionary biologist?
Yes, he would be talking about the Cambrian explosion, and the point of quoting this would be ... ?

Your creationist website might tell you the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution ... but it does not. ( I am guessing this is your point )

en.wikipedia.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.youtube.com...

So if the fossil record is as what most 'evolutionist' claim. Why is it that the evidence gathered do not support it (according to the quotes above).

First off I stopped reading all the quotes you are using, for the reason above.

No, the fossil record is just a very, very small piece to the evidence we have supporting evolution. I am talking HUGE amounts of evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Any idea why Dr. Sagan said the following (I have mine but would like to know yours first). “The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer”.

What is hard to understand about this ? Did you read the page I posted ?
Seriously what do you not understand here ?

Okay the alien thing again ...

Okay even if there is a god and/or alien creators, We KNOW evolution happened here on Earth. We KNOW humans and the apes share a common ancestor. We know there were no Homo sapiens in the beginning. You can say some alien god thing put a few unicellular prokaryote here 4 billion+ years ago .. but WTF is the point ? Do you seriously think a real scientist would accept this as a final answer ?

en.wikipedia.org...(human)
(# it! I am sick of searching google for more link for you )

You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.

www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by EspyderMan

 

thanks for your post Espyderman (cool ATS name).

Consider these simple logic please:

With all the evidence and facts presented so far, it points to one logical explenation about the origin of life - that it is created by an Intelligent and loving creator - Jehovah God / Yahweh to some.

For if the universe and our being alive in it is accidental or by chance, our lives can have no LASTING meaning. Don't you agree?

BUT, if our life in the universe results from design, then it follows that there must be satisfying meaning to it.

ty,
edmc2

And there we have it...the reason why so many NEED to believe: They require some mystical "MEANING OF LIFE" to cope with nature.

First of all, there is no evidence (!!) to support your claim that an intelligent and loving creator made us.

And just because you think our lives have no lasting meaning (maybe they do, maybe they don't...who cares) without god, and therefor god must be real...doesn't mean that there's an actual god! Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?

a) the premise in the OP is centuries old and is better known as Watchmaker analogy

Wiki Link


b) it reminds me of the following experiment - let's determine what's the hearing organ in a roach. We put the roach on the table, bang on it with a fist -- the roach runs away. Now, we tear off all of its legs. Repeat the acoustic stimulus. Now, the roach doesn't run away. Ergo, roach uses his legs as a hearing instrument.