oops, wrong thread.
Placed where discussions of faith and god belong.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18627/#222990
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.I guess you've never heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics]. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed in form.
Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.Wrong again. See A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.You statements contradict each other. If everything that exists had a cause, then there can be no uncaused cause. Therefore god cannot exist. In fact, nothing would exist if everything has to have a cause. Waving your hands and saying god is spiritual and doesn't need a cause is not an answer, it is an evasion.
The God I worship revealed Himself in the Bible...Circular reasoning again.
Untrue. God created the universe a few thousand years ago. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.If you were capable of thinking you would see the flaws in your logic. Why would a god create a young universe and make it look old? There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this: The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time. This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age. Conclusion There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created. http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/
Seems like a lot of trouble when creating a universe and letting it evolve would be much more cost effective.I doubt God is bothered about the cost.
"Before the universe existed" is an oxymoron. There was no before.Why can there be no "before" the universe?
And what existed before god? That's a rhetorical question because you're going to say god always existed. That is not an answer, it is an evasion. If god can be eternal so can the universe.You just said there can be no "before" and yet you ask what existed before god? You are comparing the spiritual with the material. It is not an evasion to say God (a spirit being) has always existed, especially since He revealed that fact to us. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Philosophically, it is impossible for nothing to exist, ergo the universe has always existed.Your "logic" is flawed. Existence is to have objective reality or being. Nothing is the lack of something. Since the universe had a beginning, logically there was nothing before it existed. You can play word games, but that does not alter the facts.
Before you ask how the universe could exist without a creator you need to explain how a creator could exist without a creator.No I don't. The Creator is spiritual and has always existed. His creation is material.
Even if we grant (and we don't) that some thing created our universe it does not logically follow that the creator was the god you worship. You reached a conclusion and accepted the explanations given to you without critical analysis.The God I worship revealed Himself in the Bible, which proves to be accurate: 1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-how-archaeology-confirms-the-biblical-record http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm 2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml 3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies: http://www.100prophecies.com/ http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101lastdays.cfm http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements. This is what happens when logic is warped in favor of ideological presuppositions. While you do point out areas that nobody has clear answers to, what is clear is that you are trying to confirm your existing beliefs. Unfortunately scientific inquiry doesn't work like that. What we try to do is refute what we suppose and if our ideas survive then they have a good probability of reliably explaining something. Also, on the theological side of things- its not a simple as your fundamentalist mentors have presented things to you.
I am not aware of any historical evidence for evolution within the Bible by the mind and hand of man.I do. See: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18627/#222976 for details. Here is what I found on your link: Elaine Pagels, née Hiesey (born Palo Alto, California, February 13, 1943), is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. The recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, she is best known for her studies and writing on the Gnostic Gospels. Her popular books include The Gnostic Gospels (1979), Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (1988), The Origin of Satan (1995), Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity (2007), and Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation (2012).[1] The Gnostic Gospels were all rejected by the Bible scholars who were considering which writings sere to be included. There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content. I. The Bibliographic Test A. The Quantity of Manuscripts In the case of the Old Testament, there are a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel's turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures). The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20. B. The Quality of Manuscripts Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed. As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style. While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism. C. The Time Span of Manuscripts Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them. The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175-225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors. To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents. II. The Internal Test The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, What claims does the Bible make about itself? This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored. A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, “And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe" (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also" (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1). The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke's two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4). III. The External Test Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2 illustrate this. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel's first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.). The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extra biblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts. We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and second-century writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud. The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work. http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.I guess you've never heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics]. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed in form.
Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.Wrong again. See A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.You statements contradict each other. If everything that exists had a cause, then there can be no uncaused cause. Therefore god cannot exist. In fact, nothing would exist if everything has to have a cause. Waving your hands and saying god is spiritual and doesn't need a cause is not an answer, it is an evasion.
The God I worship revealed Himself in the Bible...Circular reasoning again. You are engaging in evidence free denial of the facts in a pathetic effort to cling to your erroneous preconceptions. The laws of thermodynamics only exist because the universe exists because God created everything. He is spirit. The universe is material and had a beginning before which there was nothing, from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.So by "evolutionist view" you are also including the evangelical Christian Francis Collins, many Catholics, and other Christians that do not have a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Ever wonder why they might just consider it valid science as well? Its not just an atheist thing.
Pahu,
By the way, if you really feel this is pseudoscience why didn’t you post in that forum to begin with?
Which has nothing to do with the appearance of the universe from nothing. There are many "Christians" who reject what the Bible teaches. Evolution teaches origins by natural, mindless forces. Creation teaches origins by Intelligent Design. The two teachings contradict and cannot both be true.The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.So by "evolutionist view" you are also including the evangelical Christian Francis Collins, many Catholics, and other Christians that do not have a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Ever wonder why they might just consider it valid science as well? Its not just an atheist thing.
Pahu, By the way, if you really feel this is pseudoscience why didn't you post in that forum to begin with?My posts are based on the facts of science, not on a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Pahu, By the way, if you really feel this is pseudoscience why didn't you post in that forum to begin with?My posts are based on the facts of science, not on a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. I don't think you know what that word means.
What I don't understand about all these creationist types is, why would their god give humans reason, creativity, the scientific method, etc. only so that they would NOT use it and instead resort to fairy tales that are so easy to come up with. I mean if I were the big god, and created this incredible machine that produces creative, reasoning, beings, I wouldn't want them wasting their lives fearing me, praying to me, etc. I'd want them to use the gifts I gave them to figure out the big puzzle and help each other using the tools I've given them. I'd be pissed that these creationists have such low regard for Me that they think I'm just some higher form of street magician. So Pahu, answer me this - why do you belittle God with all this simpleton creationist talk? Why do you think so little of Her?I do not think revealing the facts of creation belittles the Creator. There are no facts of creation. There are only claims without evidence. I have one question for you. Can you provide even a fraction of the objective evidence for creation as has been presented for evolution? You keep on asking for more and more evidence of evolution while you have absolutely none for creation. Until you can provide let's say half as much objective, measurable, repeatable evidence for creation as has been provided for evolution, you have no right to demand more evidence for evolution. if you don't want to be seen as a bigger fool than you have already shown yourself to be here, even up the odds. Show some evidence to support your contention. You have yet to provide any. Bythe way, in case you are thinking of using bible citations to "prove your claims," bible citations prove nothing. They are simply creationist claims that have no evidence to support them any more than you have. You prove yourself every time you post to be incapable of defending your position with anything resembling logic.
What I don't understand about all these creationist types is, why would their god give humans reason, creativity, the scientific method, etc. only so that they would NOT use it and instead resort to fairy tales that are so easy to come up with. I mean if I were the big god, and created this incredible machine that produces creative, reasoning, beings, I wouldn't want them wasting their lives fearing me, praying to me, etc. I'd want them to use the gifts I gave them to figure out the big puzzle and help each other using the tools I've given them. I'd be pissed that these creationists have such low regard for Me that they think I'm just some higher form of street magician. So Pahu, answer me this - why do you belittle God with all this simpleton creationist talk? Why do you think so little of Her?I do not think revealing the facts of creation belittles the Creator. There are no facts of creation. There are only claims without evidence. I have one question for you. Can you provide even a fraction of the objective evidence for creation as has been presented for evolution? You keep on asking for more and more evidence of evolution while you have absolutely none for creation. Until you can provide let's say half as much objective, measurable, repeatable evidence for creation as has been provided for evolution, you have no right to demand more evidence for evolution. if you don't want to be seen as a bigger fool than you have already shown yourself to be here, even up the odds. Show some evidence to support your contention. You have yet to provide any. Bythe way, in case you are thinking of using bible citations to "prove your claims," bible citations prove nothing. They are simply creationist claims that have no evidence to support them any more than you have. You prove yourself every time you post to be incapable of defending your position with anything resembling logic. Where is that evidence for evolution. I have already provided some evidence for creation and of course when I share the facts of science that disproves evolution that leaves creation as the only alternative. Here is another one: Chemical Elements of Life The chemical evolution of life, as you will see in the next few pages, is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen.a However, the more closely one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears. Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon.b One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on earth’s surface since the first fossils formed. [See Table 6 on page 253.] Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an earth evolving over billions of years.c Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation.d But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life.e The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence almost simultaneously—in other words, by creation. Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments.f Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life.g a . The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%). b . Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite. c . “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem." Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen," Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442. d . Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. [See “Proteins" on page 15.] If the atmosphere had no oxygen as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen? Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved. Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all." [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life," Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, p. 783.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled. e . Hitching, p. 65. f . “If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life], then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen." J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359. “No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed." Abel and Trevors, p. 3. g . “The acceptance of this theory [life’s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous." Ibid., p. 355. Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders. Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth. Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes." http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences33.html#wp5051896
Pahu, By the way, if you really feel this is pseudoscience why didn't you post in that forum to begin with?My posts are based on the facts of science, not on a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. I don't think you know what that word means. Do you know what the word means? Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method.
Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method.I am glad to see you know the dictionary definition, but note you cannot spot pseudoscience when you see it.
The chemical evolution of life, as you will see in the next few pages, is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. However, the more closely one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.Can you explain why you believe Earth needed high concentrations of key elements? Have you spent any time becoming acquainted with the details of what science has been discovering? It can't be covered in a blog page or two. You actually need to do some homework of your own and think about these things with an objective mind rather than your obviously goal-obsessed bias. Here's a teaser of what you can find out there:
Index: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 {1} Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/earths-heat-moisture-engine.html Saturday, January 9, 2016 {2} Co-evolution of Minerals and Life | Dr Robert Hazen http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/2-coevolution-of-minerals-and-life.htmlThursday, January 14, 2016 {3} Evolution of Carbon and our biosphere - Professor Hazen focuses on the element Carbon http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-evolution-carbon-biosphere-hazen.htmlSaturday, January 23, 2016 {4} Evolution-Considering Deep Time and a Couple Big Breaks http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/4-evolution-deeptime-moon-geomagnetic.html Saturday, February 6, 2016 {5a} The Most Beautiful Graph on Earth - A. Hessler http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/most-beautiful-graph-on-earth.html Sunday, February 7, 2016 {5b} Earth's Earliest Climate - By Angela Hessler http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/earths-earliest-climate-by-hessler.html Sunday, February 14, 2016 {6} Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere - easy version http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/6-evolution-earths-atmosphere-easy.html Thursday, February 18, 2016 {7} Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine, visualized http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/7-global-heat-moisture-distribution.html Friday, February 19, 2016 {8} Atmospheric Insulation Explained - appreciating our climate engine http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/8-atmospheric-insulation-explained.html
But let me ask again to this new guy…I’m going to grant everything you say is true. There was a creator who was intelligent. Now what? Are we supposed to go to church now? Which church? Proving an ID has nothing to do with whether that ID is a christian, hindu, some religion from another planet, etc. or religion at all. And proving an ID says nothing about how “super” it is, or if it regards itself as a god at all and not just a super advanced being. PLUS proving ID says nothing about the ID’s intentions. It still allowed science and the scientific method to exist on our little rock, and for it to be practiced by what I think you’d agree are earth’s most advanced beings - humans. So even IF there’s an ID I would think it would want us to continue to use science as our greatest gift it has given us. And if you make the statement that the ID is the christian god, then you’ve blown your cover. You weren’t here to discuss ID, you were here to push your religion. So I ask, now what?
But let me ask again to this new guy...I'm going to grant everything you say is true. There was a creator who was intelligent. Now what? Are we supposed to go to church now? Which church? Proving an ID has nothing to do with whether that ID is a christian, hindu, some religion from another planet, etc. or religion at all. And proving an ID says nothing about how "super" it is, or if it regards itself as a god at all and not just a super advanced being. PLUS proving ID says nothing about the ID's intentions. It still allowed science and the scientific method to exist on our little rock, and for it to be practiced by what I think you'd agree are earth's most advanced beings - humans. So even IF there's an ID I would think it would want us to continue to use science as our greatest gift it has given us. And if you make the statement that the ID is the christian god, then you've blown your cover. You weren't here to discuss ID, you were here to push your religion. So I ask, now what?I am not pushing my religion. I am here to share the truth. Intelligent design is referring to the one and only true, living, creator God who created everything and everyone including the laws of science and our minds capable of observing and discovering those laws and putting them to use for our benefit, or destruction (consider we now have produced enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on Earth over 400 times). The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies proving its divine origin. In it God reveals His nature, our sinful nature and His plan for our salvation from the consequences of those sins. As to which church we should attend, I believe any church that teaches the truth will do. We can determine whether it is teaching the truth by comparing it with the Word of God.
Which has nothing to do with the appearance of the universe from nothing. There are many "Christians" who reject what the Bible teaches. Evolution teaches origins by natural, mindless forces. Creation teaches origins by Intelligent Design. The two teachings contradict and cannot both be true. Thats a false dichotomy. Ever heard of theistic evolution? And now you can also determine who real Christians are and who are not? Man, are you special.The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.So by "evolutionist view" you are also including the evangelical Christian Francis Collins, many Catholics, and other Christians that do not have a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Ever wonder why they might just consider it valid science as well? Its not just an atheist thing.
But let me ask again to this new guy...I'm going to grant everything you say is true. There was a creator who was intelligent. Now what? Are we supposed to go to church now? Which church? Proving an ID has nothing to do with whether that ID is a christian, hindu, some religion from another planet, etc. or religion at all. And proving an ID says nothing about how "super" it is, or if it regards itself as a god at all and not just a super advanced being. PLUS proving ID says nothing about the ID's intentions. It still allowed science and the scientific method to exist on our little rock, and for it to be practiced by what I think you'd agree are earth's most advanced beings - humans. So even IF there's an ID I would think it would want us to continue to use science as our greatest gift it has given us. And if you make the statement that the ID is the christian god, then you've blown your cover. You weren't here to discuss ID, you were here to push your religion. So I ask, now what?I am not pushing my religion. I am here to share the truth. Intelligent design is referring to the one and only true, living, creator God who created everything and everyone including the laws of science and our minds capable of observing and discovering those laws and putting them to use for our benefit, or destruction (consider we now have produced enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on Earth over 400 times). The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies proving its divine origin. In it God reveals His nature, our sinful nature and His plan for our salvation from the consequences of those sins. As to which church we should attend, I believe any church that teaches the truth will do. We can determine whether it is teaching the truth by comparing it with the Word of God. Hallelujah.
Which has nothing to do with the appearance of the universe from nothing. There are many "Christians" who reject what the Bible teaches. Evolution teaches origins by natural, mindless forces. Creation teaches origins by Intelligent Design. The two teachings contradict and cannot both be true. Thats a false dichotomy. Ever heard of theistic evolution? And now you can also determine who real Christians are and who are not? Man, are you special. <span style="color:red]Theistic evolution"> Like fire and ice, the Bible and evolution don’t mix Pope John Paul II, in a recent statement,1 supported ‘theistic evolution’, the idea that God, over immense periods of time, used evolutionary processes to create all physical life-forms from a single organism. Numerous evangelical leaders have also made disturbing concessions to evolutionary belief,2 in spite of increasing scientific evidence against it.3 Theistic evolution is a serious departure from the historic Christian faith; it represents a grave threat to the spiritual well-being of God’s people and the effectiveness of their mission in the world. Many would ask, ‘What difference does it make how God created?’ We need to understand that human beings are ‘wired for a worldview’—God has implanted within us a deep yearning to find satisfying answers to the fundamental questions of human existence. ‘Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I live? Why is there evil and suffering? Where is history going? What will happen when I die?’ Historic Christianity passionately argues that in the Bible we have a revelation from God that supplies not just a worldview, but the worldview: the truth about the ultimate questions of life. I would submit that second to the Lord Himself, this worldview is the Church’s greatest treasure. In attempting to adjust it to modern theories of cosmic and biological evolution, we are in danger of destroying it altogether. The Bible’s message may be likened to a life-line which God throws out to a spiritually drowning humanity. This life-line is comprised of three strands of truth, indissolubly braided together: Creation, Fall, and Redemption. Theistic evolution undermines all three. Strand one: Creation The Bible proclaims that God supernaturally created ‘out of nothing’ a beautiful, harmonious world in six days. The brief Creation Week perfectly suited His purpose, which was to provide a home and a stage for the chief actor in the forthcoming drama of history—man, the creature uniquely made in His own image and likeness. Indeed, so special was man that God gave him prince-like authority over all nature, commissioning him lovingly to ‘subdue’ it responsibly for his own enjoyment and the greater glory of the Creator (Genesis 1:24–28). Here we first see the wisdom, goodness, and power of God, as well as the dignity and uniqueness of man in the Creation. But theistic evolution (and so-called ‘progressive creationism’ as well) undermines all this. It denies the plain biblical chronology and sequence of God’s creative acts (Genesis 1–2, Exodus 20:8–11). Even more seriously, it attacks the very character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and purposeless course of evolution. Theistic evolution also subtly undermines the dignity and sanctity of human life, by transforming the prince of Creation into a virtual afterthought of the creation process. Strand two: Fall According to Scripture, when the first man, Adam, (the father and representative of the human family) failed God’s simple test of love and obedience, the entire race fell with him into guilt, indwelling sin, sickness, suffering, and death (Romans 5:12 ff). Not only this, but nature itself was also brought down. The ground was cursed, the elements disturbed, and the animal kingdom wounded (Genesis 3:17). In the words of the apostle Paul, through man’s sin the whole creation was ‘subjected to futility’ and ‘enslaved to corruption’. As a result, the whole creation waits and groans for ‘the revealing of the sons of God’ in resurrection glory at the return of Christ—for as in sin, so in final redemption: the destiny of the creation is inextricably bound to the destiny of man, (Romans 8:20–22). This biblical teaching supplies a reasonable and spiritually satisfying explanation for the presence of evil and suffering in the world—an absolutely crucial component of any satisfactory worldview. Furthermore, because it pictures sinful passions as alien to original human nature, it motivates us to resist them with help from Him who is opposed to them. Theistic evolution, however, again throws all into confusion. It portrays God as using suffering and death to create, even though the Bible calls death ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26). It thereby diminishes our sense of His holiness and goodness.4 Strand three: redemption God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to become ‘the last Adam’, (Romans 5:12 ff, 1 Corinthians 15:45–49). The former Adam ‘sold’ mankind into sin and the peril of eternal judgment. The ‘last Adam’, on behalf of all who trust in Him, paid the debt to God’s justice, thus ‘buying them back’ into God’s family through His own life, death, and resurrection. The rich inheritance of these believing sons and daughters includes forgiveness of sins, fellowship with God, spiritual transformation, and eternal, resurrection life in a glorious new world that Christ will create. Thus, the backbone of the message of redemption is the stupendous revelation of the two Adams. But again, theistic evolution strikes at its very heart. This is because the compromise with evolution almost inevitably leads to a denial both of the historicity of Adam and his ruinous fall. Evolutionism clearly undermines the first Adam. But what is the effect of this on the Last Adam (Jesus Christ), whose very mission, according to Scripture, was to undo what the first Adam had so disastrously done?! Insightful critics of theistic evolution have often commented on its inherent anti-supernaturalism. An aversion to the supernatural in Creation and Fall will sooner or later infect our understanding of redemption as well. The tendency, of course, will be to direct the eye of faith away from the Cross and second coming of Christ towards an ongoing evolutionary process. We already have an example of this in the theology of Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, who rejected the orthodox doctrines of Creation, Fall, Redemption, Heaven, and Hell, in favour of the view that all humanity is gradually evolving towards a mystical, pantheistic union with God.5 Similarly, New Age theorist John White affirms, ‘The final appearance of the Christ will not be a man in the air before whom all must kneel. The final appearance of Christ will be an evolutionary event.’6 Conclusion Theistic evolution, which at first glance seems a reasonable compromise with ‘science’, undermines the entire biblical worldview. Let us not, then, distort or discard any part of this great treasure in favour of the ever-changing opinions of science or philosophy. Evolutionism is the foundation from which the modern world system launches nearly every ideological attack against the faith of Christ. Here, then, where the battle is raging in our time, is where we are called to stand and fight. http://creation.com/theistic-evolution-what-difference-does-it-makeThe fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.So by "evolutionist view" you are also including the evangelical Christian Francis Collins, many Catholics, and other Christians that do not have a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Ever wonder why they might just consider it valid science as well? Its not just an atheist thing.