Creator or Chance Accident - I will prove this to you!

reply to post by Faith2011


You like god...we get it...still doesn't change the fact that you're asking people to believe like blind sheep without any objective evidence supporting it. So sorry, not interested

reply to post by SuperiorEd

All other life on this planet occupies a domain that is fixed. Birds have the air, fish the sea. Humans exceed any domain, therefore we have moved beyond the limitations of the domain of Earth.

This is mysticism, not science. In fact, it is scientifically incorrect. What domains do bacteria and viruses occupy? They can be found all over the Earth and even inside it, as well as in the sea and sky. What about newts and frogs? Rats and cockroaches? Peacocks and pheasants? Speaking of birds ‘having the air’, doesn’t every bird, even an albatross, have to alight somewhere eventually? Hatchlings are not born on the wing. Does that not mean that the bird’s true ‘element’ is earth? If not, what does that say about geysers and volcanoes?

I began my exchange with you under a misapprehension. I thought you were trying to argue creationism from a logical or evidential standpoint. Perhaps you think you are, but it is fairly clear now that your arguments are metaphorical and literary, not philosophical or scientific. They are not to be taken seriously.

*

Entropy does not act on the mind, which is capable of moving substance to purpose.

What do you mean by ‘substance’? Do you mean matter? Entropy acts on the brain as it does on all matter. If you are saying that mind exists independent from the brain, you will have to prove it first. I wish you joy of the attempt, but you will fail, as all dualists have failed since time immemorial.

If you have another definition of ‘substance’, please make clear what it is.

There are no examples to be found where substance acts with purpose apart from consciousness.

First you insist that ‘substance acts with purpose’ only under the influence of consciousness, justifying this by claiming that things made by humans reveal their purpose in their design. Then you look around you at all the apparently purposive effects of mindless substance in the universe and conclude that there has to be a Mind moving them around! Don’t you understand that your second premise negates your first?

Start with Hume and empiricism, then read Hobbs.

I am familiar with Hobbes – look, I even know how to spell his name properly. I have already mentioned Hume. I am an empiricist, more or less. What are you?

Someone, it seems, who doesn’t know that Hobbes precedes Hume in history and argument.

You are trying to defend a blind man's description of fire. So am I.

Speak for yourself. What Hobbes is saying in the paragraph you quoted is merely that the mind cannot conceive of anything that is not apprehensible by the senses, therefore concepts such as infinity and God are not comprehensible to the mind. This has no bearing on what you are talking about. If you are going to quote philosophers, quote them to some purpose.

Crystals are likened to humans in that we both have lattice structures... the only way a crystal can be useful apart from its domain is if a conscious observer makes it so.

Human beings do not have lattice structures, apart from that of our bones. We are mostly water.

*

reply to post by SuperiorEd

How about some physics to back me up?

The Bible is not a physics textbook. Trust me on this. Physics was my degree subject, and we never opened a bible once in three years.

reply to post by Astyanax



Newton wrote surprisingly much about the Bible. He believed that its revelation of the past history of humans and its predictions of the future were entirely reliable. He also studied the history of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern nations and concluded that both Greek and Egyptian historians had artificially stretched their history to make it appear longer than it actually was.

Ancient nations seemed to have had a competition for the longest national history. Historians could for instance invent fictive rulers in order to make the past of their own country appear longer than the history of neighbouring countries.

According to Newton, the history written in the Bible differed from the stories of other nations since it described the past reliably.

reply to post by Faith2011


The thing is, Newton's laws are still valid because we can objectively verify them. However, science completely debunked many of the bible's claims, like global flood.

reply to post by Faith2011

Newton wrote surprisingly much about the Bible.

I'm not sure why it should be surprising. He was a philosopher, a Christian, a trained theologian and a polymath. It would be more surprising if he hadn't.

But did you know that Newton was a rather special kind of Christian – a heretic of the Arian persuasion? Newton questioned the humanity of Jesus and viewed him as subordinate, not equal to almighty God the Father. Neither did he believe in the Divine Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, by the standards of modern Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant Christianity, Newton was a blasphemer and a heretic. Newton's Arianism.

He believed that its revelation of the past history of humans and its predictions of the future were entirely reliable. He also studied the history of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern nations and concluded that both Greek and Egyptian historians had artificially stretched their history to make it appear longer than it actually was.

I am not aware of his views on the reliability of the Bible. In his chronological studies, he sought to reconcile the dates of ancient history with the cramped time-scale that is all the Bible allows those who insist on taking it literally. This was a fool's errand, of course; we now possess more reliable ways to find out the true dates of past events and relics, and we know that Newton's ideas were wrong. He was working with insufficient knowledge.

Those familiar with Newton's unpublished 'classical scholia' (the works you are referring to above) suggest that Newton's main concern was really with documenting (a cynic might say devising) an ancient hermetic or philosophical tradition into which his own work, the Principia would fit*. No European in those days publicly questioned the authority of the Bible. Newton certainly would not have done so: despite his Puritan upbringing, he was very much a man of the Establishment: Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, Master of the Royal Mint and Knight of the Realm.

Ancient nations seemed to have had a competition for the longest national history. Historians could for instance invent fictive rulers in order to make the past of their own country appear longer than the history of neighbouring countries.

Could you substantiate this with at least one example, please? Apart from the well-known Sumerian king lists, with their implausibly long antediluvian reigning periods, I know of no nation or people whose historical (as opposed to mythical) chronology goes back substantially further than the Bible. Most national or ethnic histories fade into the vague chronology of mythic time when dealing with origins. If you know otherwise, please enlighten me.

According to Newton, the history written in the Bible differed from the stories of other nations since it described the past reliably.

Well, Newton lived in an age of faith. It was an age of faith partly because the scope of knowledge, and the means to it, were so constrained by the limits of exploration and technology. We now know that the Bible is not nearly so reliable as Newton thought.

I believe there are some people, even today, who believe the Universe is a mere six thousand years old and that its appearance of great antiquity was fabricated by a deceitful God in order to 'test the faith' of human beings. I think it is unlikely that One who could create a universe would be so lacking in self-esteem as to stoop to such a craven subterfuge merely to flatter His insecurities. But people blinded by faith can be very stupid at times.

If the point you are making is that Newton was religious, that is unhesitatingly granted. If you are quoting Newton as an authority to give credence to the words of the Bible, isn't that rather putting the cart before the horse?

*See here, for example.

reply to post by MrXYZ

In a recent article from the Washington Post, explorer Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) led a team to the Black Sea in search of evidence for Noah’s Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a ‘sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago—the possible source of the Old Testament story of Noah.’

They captured sonar images of a ‘gentle berm and a sandbar submerged undisturbed for thousands of years on the sea floor.’ Then using radiocarbon dating, they determined that the remains of the freshwater mollusks found on this submerged beach were 7,500 years old and that the saltwater species were only 6,900 years old. (By the way, radiocarbon is not reliable in giving accurate dates going back thousands of years. AiG believes that Noah’s Flood should be dated to about 4,300 years ago.)

In an interview, Ballard said, ‘What we wanted to do is prove to ourselves that it was the biblical flood.’

According to Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman, who had predicted where this shoreline would be found in the Black Sea, describe the flood as such: ‘The Black Sea was created when melting glaciers raised the sea level until the sea breached a natural dam at what is now the Bosporus, the strait that separates the Mediterranean Sea from the Black Sea. An apocalyptic deluge followed, inundating the freshwater lake below the dam, submerging thousands of square miles of dry land, flipping the ecosystem from fresh water to salt practically overnight, and probably killing thousands of people and billions of land and sea creatures.’www.answersingenesis.org...

A "Whale" of a Fossil:
Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry.

"They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere... (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.

"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long. 46,47

More Fossil Whales:

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?" 48

"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..." 48

Marine Fossils In The Mountains:
In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils. These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. 49,50,51,52,53 For more on this subject see the following video 54 by Dr. Walter Brown.
Fissures In The Rocks:
In caves and fissures in England and Whales and all over western Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the mammoth, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf and cave lion. In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered. 55

"In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay -- a flat-topped hill near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon and Lyons -- there is a fissure filled with animal bones. 'Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?' asked Albert Gaudry, professor at the Jardin des Plantes. According to him, the bones in this cleft are mostly broken and splintered into innumerable... fragments and are 'evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of prey; nor have they been broken by man. Nevertheless, the remains of wolf were ... abundant, together with those of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and deer... Prestwich thought that the animal bones... were found in common heaps because, '... [they] had fled [there] to escape the rising waters.'"

reply to post by Faith2011


Which only proves a LOCAL flood, and NOT a global flood as claimed in the bible

Which means Noah (if he existed) also didn't have "2 of each kind" but only some local species. So either way, the bible is wrong

I have already given logical answers to the rest of what you wrote so I'll answer the part about the lattice structure of the body. This was in response to your claim that crystals defy entropy. There is a major protein in the body responsible for holding us together, which is in a lattice structure. It (Lamanin) is basically the rebar of the body. "The laminins are a family of glycoproteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding in almost every tissue of an organism."

Let me connect Laminin to the Bible.



If the picture is not enough to convince you, how about a verse.

Colossians 1:16-17
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Did you get that last part. In Him all things hold together. Literally. Better look at that picture again.

I'll make the point again. If you do not believe and you are listening to the spirit of the world (1 Corinthians 2), then you will see this as foolish. You are essentially seeing yourself in the reflection and missing God.

1 Corinthians 2:10-16
10 The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: 16 ”For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Crystals are likened to humans in that we both have lattice structures... the only way a crystal can be useful apart from its domain is if a conscious observer makes it so.

Human beings do not have lattice structures, apart from that of our bones. We are mostly water.

*

reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

How about some physics to back me up?

The Bible is not a physics textbook. Trust me on this. Physics was my degree subject, and we never opened a bible once in three years.

edit on 26/3/11 by Astyanax because: of obsession.

That's interesting. Do you have any references to this anywhere that you could link?

Originally posted by Faith2011
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Newton wrote surprisingly much about the Bible. He believed that its revelation of the past history of humans and its predictions of the future were entirely reliable. He also studied the history of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern nations and concluded that both Greek and Egyptian historians had artificially stretched their history to make it appear longer than it actually was.

Ancient nations seemed to have had a competition for the longest national history. Historians could for instance invent fictive rulers in order to make the past of their own country appear longer than the history of neighbouring countries.

According to Newton, the history written in the Bible differed from the stories of other nations since it described the past reliably.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
I will prove this to you!

Subscribing to the thread so I don't miss it when it comes.

Peace

reply to post by Faith2011


It's fun that some creationist give credit to carbon dating to this finding but don't accept the same methodology for other findings

reply to post by SuperiorEd

your claim that crystals defy entropy.

For the last time:

NOTHING IS IMMUNE TO ENTROPY

Got it?

reply to post by SuperiorEd

This is where the Atheist always goes. Insult and bias from a fixed mindset.

The proof you outlined would rightfully be considered an Atheistic form of creator. Are you attempting to prove a theistic creator, or some computer tech guy playing an advanced game of Sims from a real universe? Your also overlooking the fact that the mere suggestion that we could be a created simulation (and one that could some day do the same), still leaves open the question of HOW life in whatever real universe got started. Do we assume that the computer tech guy is also a created simulation and that his computer tech guy is a simulation, etc.?

This isn't a fixed mindset at all, it's just simple logic.

I have provided a plausible explanation that shows mankind can produce such a reality at the basic level. We prove such a creation is possible.

Sure, one day we could create an artificial simulated universe complete with artificially intelligent beings of our own design, but this still does not answer HOW life in any REAL universe arises. Your stuck on infinite regression, and this solves nothing at all.

I have also given an airtight argument which proves our origin is not of this world.

No, you've given an argument of infinite regression and would like us to believe that the computer tech guy from the real universe is the end all to all creation without answering how he arose in which to create us.

I hear no argument against my points except simpleminded bias.

Infinite regression is not a simpleminded bias, it's an exercise of simple logic that anyone should be able to grasp fairly easily.

Nothing apart from consciousness rises above its source, yet we have risen above the earth. This is not demonstrated in any way in nature. Give me one example! I have not heard anyone refute this with any example to the contrary. Bias is not an answer. Show me anything on earth that flows beyond the Earth apart from consciousness. Also, while you are at it, provide me with the scientific fact that explains consciousness.

Consciousness is just another way of saying self aware and every species on this planet is self aware to varying degrees dependent upon the complexity of it's systems. There is no external consciousness that exists without the body and the contrary has never once been proven to be true.

Our body is an obvious bio-mechanically engineered suit at the nano level. All parts of the tiny universe called the human body work with purpose according to encoded information. This cannot be a chance occurrence apart from conscious choice. Effort to move upstream in nature requires effort. To have a stream at all requires governance. Who is the governor? We are above what science says is our source--Earth. How is this possible?

Physics of the universe is the governor. It controls all physical, chemical, biological processes throughout the entire universe. Our meager understandings of how these processes work in full that lead to organic beings capable of thinking and wondering still does not lend proof that we are created by some computer tech guy from a real universe.

Where is your evidence refuting my argument. There is none apart from bias, fixed mindset, incredulity and misdirection. Please provide the science behind your arguments against my simple facts. Don't just say it can't be true. Back it up with some evidence.

What facts have you listed in your infinite regression argument? What evidence have you personally provided beyond wild conjecture and speculation?

It is possible you are not understanding my argument. Entropy is the universe going from more order to less. Falling apart if you will.

Entropy is the tendency of energy seeking the lowest possible state over time, at least from my understanding of it. In other words, moving from chaos into order. Like a hot cup of coffee, the chaotic mess of atoms in the coffee seek a lower energy state, thus making it cool.

All of nature and substance flows away. Entropy permeates all aspects of human existence. That is, except for consciousness. Consciousness reverses entropy and organizes substance into purpose.

What evidence do you have that being self aware can reverse the principles of entropy? My being aware of myself will never make a cup of coffee go from being cool to hot unless some physical process is enacted upon that cup of coffee, such as being put into a microwave and having the radiation from that device exert physical energy upon the atoms in that cup. Never can my self awareness alone perform the same function of a microwave.

Nothing to something can only happen with possibility and choice.

I don't understand this statement as it's devoid of any further argument or evidence that would lead me to believe that something can come from nothing by mere decision making processes alone.

It is that simple. 'We', the human species, are our best evidence of a Creator.

I disagree. We are an organic species ruled by biochemical processes that readily arise in nature on a regular basis, both on planetary bodies and within nebular systems.

Either we happened by a nature defying accident, or thought created us and is above nature.

A naturalistic approach lends no credence to any act of "accident". Chemistry is a well known and well understood process these days. We understand for the most part how chemical reactions take place and even some chemical reactions that can lead to evolving self reproducing molecules. Technically there are some Nebular systems out in the cosmos that exhibit life like properties, with clouds of dust consuming, reproducing and evolving more complex structures. Not sure if this means we've discovered living clouds of gasses out in the cosmos, but this does lead credence to the possibility that self replication is a natural occurrence in our universe.

Either way, conscious choice is the only thing that defies entropy in nature.

You've yet to show any evidence that the act of being self aware gives one the ability to defy entropy.

No exceptions to increasing entropy have ever been show by science.

You don't believe in microwaves? I can reverse the entropic state of a cold cup of water on a regular basis.

For science, this one impossible singularity event of "evolution" is taken strictly on faith and cannot be demonstrated without mental gymnastics and absurd theories that are not based in reality. Show me one example to contradict what I have said. Give me your science.

Look up observed instances of speciation. Learn how bacteria and viruses regularly need newer vaccines to combat against them. Hell... learn where the banana came from.

All other life on this planet occupies a domain that is fixed. Birds have the air, fish the sea. Humans exceed any domain, therefore we have moved beyond the limitations of the domain of Earth.

Actually humans have not biologically moved beyond it's limitation of a landlocked air breathing species. Just saying. Our domain from a biological point of view is just as fixed as a fishes.

Purpose is not fixed for the conscious observer who possesses reason and logic (knowledge of good and evil).

Good and evil don't exist naturally. We humans consider it evil to kill another of our own kind. Other species do so on a regular basis. Are those species inherently evil for acting upon survival instincts?

Entropy acts on all substance and the material world fades. Entropy does not act on the mind, which is capable of moving substance to purpose. There are no examples to be found where substance acts with purpose apart from consciousness.

Are you telling us that Alzheimer's and Dementia don't exist?

Start with Hume and empiricism, then read Hobbs. You are trying to defend a blind man's description of fire. So am I. We need to look at the most probable answer. We are greater than anything around us in an environment that is in decay and constant transition.

Why do you believe that the most probable answer is that we were created through infinite regression? Where does it ultimately begin with the first act of creation? Is there ever a first act of creation?

All of the scriptural thing's you have posted I won't bother to respond to as the ancient meanings behind those verses have no bearing on the modern equivalencies you arbitrarily place upon them.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Sure, one day we could create an artificial simulated universe complete with artificially intelligent beings of our own design, but this still does not answer HOW life in any REAL universe arises. Your stuck on infinite regression, and this solves nothing at all.

The entire universe is a copy above as below. The macrocosm is a copy of the microcosm. Your body is a universe of trillions of cells. Look up and you see the same. Look down and you see the fractal of what you see above. As a prelude to your next comment below and to answer the one above.

No, you've given an argument of infinite regression and would like us to believe that the computer tech guy from the real universe is the end all to all creation without answering how he arose in which to create us. Infinite regression is not a simpleminded bias, it's an exercise of simple logic that anyone should be able to grasp fairly easily.

Not all regresses are vicious. Do some research.

Consciousness is just another way of saying self aware and every species on this planet is self aware to varying degrees dependent upon the complexity of it's systems. There is no external consciousness that exists without the body and the contrary has never once been proven to be true.

No, we are the only species that creates more than we are by am improbable degree of difference, both mentally and physically.

Physics of the universe is the governor. It controls all physical, chemical, biological processes throughout the entire universe. Our meager understandings of how these processes work in full that lead to organic beings capable of thinking and wondering still does not lend proof that we are created by some computer tech guy from a real universe.

Sorry. Physics is the theory of the governor.

What facts have you listed in your infinite regression argument? What evidence have you personally provided beyond wild conjecture and speculation? Entropy is the tendency of energy seeking the lowest possible state over time, at least from my understanding of it. In other words, moving from chaos into order. Like a hot cup of coffee, the chaotic mess of atoms in the coffee seek a lower energy state, thus making it cool.

Again, not all regresses are vicious. The simple definition you give of entropy does not nearly cover what is observed from non-living matter when considering entropy. When the cup of coffee makes itself and keeps itself warm, then you have an argument.

What evidence do you have that being self aware can reverse the principles of entropy? My being aware of myself will never make a cup of coffee go from being cool to hot unless some physical process is enacted upon that cup of coffee, such as being put into a microwave and having the radiation from that device exert physical energy upon the atoms in that cup. Never can my self awareness alone perform the same function of a microwave.

This thread and the fact were are forcing our consciousness to rise by debating the obvious.

"Nothing to something can only happen with possibility and choice."

I don't understand this statement as it's devoid of any further argument or evidence that would lead me to believe that something can come from nothing by mere decision making processes alone.

You do not understand because you are not thinking philosophically with your reason and logic when considering the implications of the science we hold as mere theory. God creates what is seen by what is not visible (Hebrews 11:3).

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. This is something brought from nothing that is visible.

Much like the light you see things by. It is not the light that is visible, it's the thing it reflects on. As I have said before, a mirror cannot see itself except in reflection. You are a mirror and so is matter. Think this through and you will see that possibility is infinite before the infinity of future events. This is a paradox since God draws the future into the past for us to see both directions. We see the future as it comes from the future, yet we already know it from the past. Did I still lose you?

"It is that simple. 'We', the human species, are our best evidence of a Creator."

I disagree. We are an organic species ruled by biochemical processes that readily arise in nature on a regular basis, both on planetary bodies and within nebular systems.

Sorry, we are bio-mechanical and you are assuming this from a state of locked perspective and disadvantaged point of view.

I'll stop here so you can sift through what I have said so far. The rest of what followed is just commentary on what is above. As below, so above in this case and any other.

edit on 29-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd


I'd love to see some objective evidence backing up any of your claims...because so far, all you're doing is preaching without ever backing anything up with facts

THE ONLY thing in our marvelous universe that can create order out of chaos (negentropy, or syntropy) is life and consciousness. Do just a little physics research and notice that the universe was once at a state of high order and low entropy. Entropy increases (disorder) in the universe. Have you ever cleaned your room? Have you ever seen an acorn and what it becomes? A dead seed rots in the ground. WHY????

I've got to hand it to myself, this is the best proof yet!! I hadn't thought about this until I read This. One of my favorite websites of all time.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

your claim that crystals defy entropy.

For the last time:

NOTHING IS IMMUNE TO ENTROPY

Got it?

edit on 28/3/11 by Astyanax because: of poor formatting.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


How about you post some objective evidence instead of just preaching...just once!

Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the meaning of the scriptures.

But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated. 1 Corinthians 2:14

One more time. Here it is. A dead seed (acorn) will not defy entropy and grow to a giant tree. A live seed will. Not only will it grow, it has a purpose and it grows by the imprinting of information. It provides a habitat for other living creatures that are busy defying entropy for themselves. Usefulness.

Information in its most restricted technical sense is an ordered sequence of symbols that record or transmit a message. It can be recorded as signs, or conveyed as waves. Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system.

God does this for you. Take a look sometime and read nature for what it is. A reflection of God and you can read the information. How astounding!

Information animates. Apart from information, no animation. Information can only be designed. Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns. Can't you see the patterns to purpose from design? Evolution is a dead theory. Even the most poorly made machine is evidence of a designer. Our bio-mechanical suit is about as complicated a design as we can never conceive. We are not capable of designing our body. The body has a source that is not us. Look around. The source is not here in this universe, yet He is this universe. Information from a mind. The original seed that came before the egg or the chicken.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

How about you post some objective evidence instead of just preaching...just once!

Originally posted by Faith2011


Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the meaning of the scriptures.

But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated. 1 Corinthians 2:14

Again...anu objective evidence to back up any of those crazy claims?