Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to leave this one to you folks. We have seen the 'scientific objections' and Eusebius is undoubtedly the stoutet debator there is, yet it has come douwn to complete and wilful ignorance of anything about the subject and total and wilful denial of the evidence that is all for evolution and harping on the areas of unknowns and hypotheticals. That is the very best the other side can produce.
Thank you for your thoughts on this dear friend.
Yes, I agree, there are many areas of unknowns and hypotheticals on both sides of the debate. Sometimes it needs to be shown that what is called "fact" is in fact something hypothetical and unknown. That is the problem with evolution. Evolution states "God didn't do it," that "naturalistic processes at work created everything."
How do they know that for sure?
How can a scientist make a theological statement within the confines of so-called "science"? Does the evolutionist one such as Dawkins and others have scientific data which has been tested that God did not create the heavens and earth and all the plant and animal life?
If not, how can they enter the religious arena and make pronouncements against religion? against Christianity?
Back to what the evolutionist calls "the very beginning of life: i.e., the single cell."
How did blind chance code the single cell with reams and reams of code to make sure all the myriad parts of that cell work in harmony with each other?
How could some chemicals getting together not only make all the many machines and parts inside that single cell but also code it so all the parts work perfectly.
We know it couldn't be trial and error to code it. All the 4 bit architecture in the coding had to be just right at the very start or the cell would die. Then evolution would have to wait billions and billions more years for just the right chemicals to get together, the perfect lightning bolt or whatever it was that caused the formation of that cell. And if it didn't get the coding correct, quite possibly more billions of years.
You see, I'm not making fun of the evolutionist theory. I'm just trying to get to the very germ of the idea of how it all started. Evolution cannot account for how that single cell, which is like a city in itself, could be so well thought out just by some non-life chemicals getting together to create all the complexities of that cell. To me, that does not make sense. It is impossible such a thing could occur. Only an Intelligent Designer could have done it; Someone way smarter than the intricacies of that single cell. Someone had to code it all. Nature knows nothing about how to code a computer by random chance. Therefore nature knows nothing about how to code a cell. Some random chemicals and some random lightening bolt could not possibly have coded that cell.
I'm going to leave this one to you folks. We have seen the 'scientific objections' and Eusebius is undoubtedly the stoutet debator there is, yet it has come down to complete and wilful ignorance of anything about the subject and total and wilful denial of the evidence that is all for evolution and harping on the areas of unknowns and hypotheticals. That is the very best the other side can produce.
Not exctly.
Scientific knowledge is an extremely powerful tool that should be explored more and more to benefit humanity; however, faith and science CAN get along if we want to live in harmony with each other.
We really don't HAVE to prove each other right or wrong in this particular debate. Perhaps Evolutionism can coexist with creationism?.
And here is how Abdul Raheem Green stated it, and I don't have much against it
You state all the above as if such scenarios actually occurred. Yet you have no proof. It is just the say-so of the scientist. You are taking him/her as his/her word. You have no proof that an ape-like creature spawned both the ape and the human lines.
You have no proof that a God even exists, let alone created anything.
You have no proof that a God even exists, let alone created anything.
While that may be so, we do have brains with which to think things through to a logical conclusion.
The atheist evolutionist has no proof God does not exist. To state "God did not create anything" is taken by faith. It is faith-based. Therefore, seeing such statements are faith-based, it is wrong on the part of the atheist evolutionist or any evolutionist for that matter to propound that "there is no God" and that "God did not create mankind." The atheist has no verifiable proof for their position that such is the case.
While that may be so, we do have brains with which to think things through to a logical conclusion.
The atheist evolutionist has no proof God does not exist. To state "God did not create anything" is taken by faith. It is faith-based. Therefore, seeing such statements are faith-based, it is wrong on the part of the atheist evolutionist or any evolutionist for that matter to propound that "there is no God" and that "God did not create mankind." The atheist has no verifiable proof for their position that such is the case.
Thank you for your thoughts on this dear friend.
Yes, I agree, there are many areas of unknowns and hypotheticals on both sides of the debate. Sometimes it needs to be shown that what is called "fact" is in fact something hypothetical and unknown. That is the problem with evolution. Evolution states "God didn't do it," that "naturalistic processes at work created everything."
How do they know that for sure?
How can a scientist make a theological statement within the confines of so-called "science"? Does the evolutionist one such as Dawkins and others have scientific data which has been tested that God did not create the heavens and earth and all the plant and animal life?
If not, how can they enter the religious arena and make pronouncements against religion? against Christianity?
Back to what the evolutionist calls "the very beginning of life: i.e., the single cell."
How did blind chance code the single cell with reams and reams of code to make sure all the myriad parts of that cell work in harmony with each other? How could some chemicals getting together not only make all the many machines and parts inside that single cell but also code it so all the parts work perfectly.
We know it couldn't be trial and error to code it. All the 4 bit architecture in the coding had to be just right at the very start or the cell would die. Then evolution would have to wait billions and billions more years for just the right chemicals to get together, the perfect lightning bolt or whatever it was that caused the formation of that cell. And if it didn't get the coding correct, quite possibly more billions of years.
You see, I'm not making fun of the evolutionist theory. I'm just trying to get to the very germ of the idea of how it all started. Evolution cannot account for how that single cell, which is like a city in itself, could be so well thought out just by some non-life chemicals getting together to create all the complexities of that cell. To me, that does not make sense. It is impossible such a thing could occur. Only an Intelligent Designer could have done it; Someone way smarter than the intricacies of that single cell. Someone had to code it all. Nature knows nothing about how to code a computer by random chance. Therefore nature knows nothing about how to code a cell. Some random chemicals and some random lightening bolt could not possibly have coded that cell.
Maybe that is exactly what happened, that billions of cells were made imperfect and died, but one cell survived and thrived. The same can be suggested of the universe and its supposed "fine-tuning". Maybe this was one of billions of original universes that just so happened to contain the components for it to survive and to support this particular type of life, one that survived out of possible billions of others.
Maybe that is exactly what happened, that billions of cells were made imperfect and died, but one cell survived and thrived. The same can be suggested of the universe and its supposed "fine-tuning". Maybe this was one of billions of original universes that just so happened to contain the components for it to survive and to support this particular type of life, one that survived out of possible billions of others.
And maybe it wasn't the way you describe above.
If just one cell did survive out of billions, it would be because all the coding was perfectly done the first time for it. For that to have occurred, you would still need an Intelligent Designer to code it just right because chance can't do it and surely some chemicals don't know how to code a cellular system. It takes intelligence just as it took intelligence to code the computers to go to the moon and back. One teeny degree off here or there and either the Apollo smashed into the earth or skips off the earth's atmosphere to be lost for ever or, if coded properly, comes in at the perfect angle for re-entry. And yet the coding for the single cell is way more coding than coding the computers for the Apollo missions.
You said that it was faith-based, by definition it cannot be derived from a logical conclusion or it would not be faith-based.
Where did you come up with that definition?
Heb 11:1 Now faith is an assumption of what is being expected,
a conviction concerning matters which are not being observed;"
I have convictions base on logical conclusions.
Assumption: [h]upostasis -- standing under
"That under which the mind takes its stand, what is taken for granted.
Conviction: a firmly held belief or opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
