There are lots of good sources. John Byl is great (http://bylogos.blogspot.com/). He is current. Stephen Meyer, "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt" also operates at a very high level. John Collins ("Scence and Faith") has spoken at my church, and done of my elders, David Snoke, has written a book "A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creation".
The Science of Creation
Sort:
Oct 15, 2017
0
#4
Zorro2002 wrote:
I do because creation is more logical.
Logical? When you say big bang is an explosion? I don't think so.
That's not much of a discussion. Smells more like superstition . Grow up.
Nov 13, 2017
0
#6
I don't think believing the beauty everywhere that is creation is superstition, its simply sound logic. Would you like to point our some logical problems with creation?
I find it kind of difficult to belief in something when there is no evidence. Believing in something like a god is like believing in Santa Claus. Yeah, there is this book called Bible. But there are other books. Harry Potter, for example. And there are other religions that claim to know the true god. Now who's right, and why?
Yes, life/nature is beautiful, I agree with you, but I don't see why there is a necessity for a 'creation (by god)' for that to be true. I don't see the logic in it.
I think mankind came up with religion because they saw a need for 'laws' (like the ten commandments in christianity, other religions proclaim 'laws', too) - Oh! Regulations! Isn't that a bad thing? No, it's not. (Good) regulations can help to keep a complex system in balance. Like, don't kill each other, don't [Removed - Mod] your neighbor's wife (or he might lust killing you), and don't steal from him... regulations and laws.
Unfortunately, the thing got mixed up with interests and power, but that is another story.
Now, a couple of thousand years later, I think there is better means to keep society in balance than religion. And religion is misused to cause division among people.
I think it is totally okay to be religions as long as one does not bother others with it. Let the kids in school study more math, literature, or teach them to cook, better not waste their time with creationism.
Nov 13, 2017
0
#8
Mistfink wrote:
I find it kind of difficult to belief in something when there is no evidence. Believing in something like a god is like believing in Santa Claus. Yeah, there is this book called Bible. But there are other books. Harry Potter, for example. And there are other religions that claim to know the true god. Now who's right, and why?
Yes, life/nature is beautiful, I agree with you, but I don't see why there is a necessity for a 'creation (by god)' for that to be true. I don't see the logic in it.
I think mankind came up with religion because they saw a need for 'laws' (like the ten commandments in christianity, other religions proclaim 'laws', too) - Oh! Regulations! Isn't that a bad thing? No, it's not. (Good) regulations can help to keep a complex system in balance. Like, don't kill each other, don't [Removed - Mod] your neighbor's wife (or he might lust killing you), and don't steal from him... regulations and laws.
Unfortunately, the thing got mixed up with interests and power, but that is another story.
Now, a couple of thousand years later, I think there is better means to keep society in balance than religion. And religion is misused to cause division among people.
I think it is totally okay to be religions as long as one does not bother others with it. Let the kids in school study more math, literature, or teach them to cook, better not waste their time with creationism.
Everything you just wrote was personal opinions, and had nothing at all to do with logic or fact. "I find it..." "I think..." "I think..." "I think..." What makes your opinions more valuable than mine? What makes what you "think" worthy of the schools, and what I "think" unworthy? If this is really a matter of opinions, you have no right to tell me to shut up.
Now, if you want to go beyond opinions, then let's address the tiny bit of what you wrote that wasn't pure opinion.
"I find it kind of difficult to belief in something when there is no evidence." You do not cite this at all. You are just assuming there is "no evidence."
But I might say that there is "no evidence" that God does not exist! I won't say that, because it's not a real argument, but my point is that Science does not work off of what there is "no evidence for" or "no evidence against." That is called arguing from lack of evidence, and is invalid. You simply can't (from a scientific perspective) say "There is no evidence for God; therefore He does not exist."
If you believe there is no God, what is your evidence that God does not exist? That would be a true argument.
Nov 13, 2017
0
#9
Mistfink wrote:
I find it kind of difficult to belief in something when there is no evidence. Believing in something like a god is like believing in Santa Claus. Yeah, there is this book called Bible. But there are other books. Harry Potter, for example. And there are other religions that claim to know the true god. Now who's right, and why?
Yes, life/nature is beautiful, I agree with you, but I don't see why there is a necessity for a 'creation (by god)' for that to be true. I don't see the logic in it.
I think mankind came up with religion because they saw a need for 'laws' (like the ten commandments in christianity, other religions proclaim 'laws', too) - Oh! Regulations! Isn't that a bad thing? No, it's not. (Good) regulations can help to keep a complex system in balance. Like, don't kill each other, don't [Removed - Mod] your neighbor's wife (or he might lust killing you), and don't steal from him... regulations and laws.
Unfortunately, the thing got mixed up with interests and power, but that is another story.
Now, a couple of thousand years later, I think there is better means to keep society in balance than religion. And religion is misused to cause division among people.
I think it is totally okay to be religions as long as one does not bother others with it. Let the kids in school study more math, literature, or teach them to cook, better not waste their time with creationism.
Well I agree with speedster that is absolutely zero evidence that God does not exist. Also, if you do not believe in a creator, you need to give sound reasoning as to why, and if you have an alternative belief you need to back that up.
I see no evidence for evolution. I see no missing link, no apes turning into humans, and no random chance. However I do see the sun coming up every day, human beings (which are miracles in and of themselves) breathing, and the earth rotating the sun in perfect order. I see no randomness there. I see a Creator.
And @destroyermark, they cant lock this thread without also locking the science of evolution thread.
Nov 13, 2017
0
#10
You must live in a sad, sad world if nothing is true, and nothing can be proven, and everything is subjective. You call "subjective" truth "the most logical", but by definition, subjective is not logical, and truth is not subjective.
You have no grounds to tell anyone they are "wrong," "ignorant," "foolish," or "crazy" if truth is "subjective."
I happen to believe differently than you--I believe in right and wrong. You can't tell me I'm wrong, because that's my "subjective truth." And for that matter, I have full confidence that you also, in your heart, know that there is a right and wrong, true and false.
There's an "opinion" for you. And don't bother telling me I'm wrong, because you already admitted that truth is relative.
Scarlet_Speedster wrote:
Everything you just wrote was personal opinions, and had nothing at all to do with logic or fact. "I find it..." "I think..." "I think..." "I think..." What makes your opinions more valuable than mine? What makes what you "think" worthy of the schools, and what I "think" unworthy? If this is really a matter of opinions, you have no right to tell me to shut up.
Now, if you want to go beyond opinions, then let's address the tiny bit of what you wrote that wasn't pure opinion.
"I find it kind of difficult to belief in something when there is no evidence." You do not cite this at all. You are just assuming there is "no evidence."
But I might say that there is "no evidence" that God does not exist! I won't say that, because it's not a real argument, but my point is that Science does not work off of what there is "no evidence for" or "no evidence against." That is called arguing from lack of evidence, and is invalid. You simply can't (from a scientific perspective) say "There is no evidence for God; therefore He does not exist."
If you believe there is no God, what is your evidence that God does not exist? That would be a true argument.
I did not tell you to shut up, did I? And I did not say that your opinion is less valuable than mine. In fact, I did not say anything to YOU at all. And I did not say 'There is no god'. I tried to work out for the readers why I think what I think. Yes, what I said is 'I think...', there you are absolutely right. Thinking is a valuable asset, it can prevent a lot of harm.
Of course I have no scientific proof that there is no god like the ones who belief in A god (again, there seem to be many, can you prove yours is the right one) cannot prove that there is one.
If I cited any source you would just say that that's not facts an maybe you could cite some other source who shares your facts. In the time of alternative facts anybody can claim anything. You cannot prove that the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
@Proguntator2: Just looking at the sun rising is not a scientific prove, it's pure belief with nothing but a ancient book backing it up. And who wrote that book, by the way? Have you ever tried to find out what science says about it?
So now I'm off and let you all believe in what you believe. I just wished that the believers keep their unproven beliefs to themselves and their community and that they do not deduces laws and regulations from it that affect people who don't belief the same thing. If you don't approve of abortion, just don't do it, but let other people think and decide for themselves.
Bye folks. And don't let your wifes be grabbed by their pussy by some manner-less atheist.
(Edited)
Nov 14, 2017
0
#13
Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection
Atheism is largely based on the Darwinian theory of evolution, which includes the basic idea from Charles Darwin of natural selection. Natural selection functions on the basis that over long periods of time, out of a biological food web, only the strongest, most productive, and most intelligent survive, while the others are weeded out by the laws of nature due to their own incompetence. While this theory works out in many situations and can sufficiently explain many scenarios, it cannot resolve the problem of creation and I'm going to show you why, in a question and answer format where the questions are asked by religionists, and the answers provided by atheists as well as they can.
First question. If natural selection occurs on the basis that only the strongest, smartest and most productive survive, then why are humans still here? After all, we humans are weak animals, and we take a whole 9 months to give birth to just one baby (unless it's a twin, triplet, or so on). The atheist answer, of course, focuses on intelligence. Humans, by judgement, are many times more intelligent than other animals. They then point out to the Quaternary Extinction Event, which cause die-offs of many powerful natural predators in Europe, happening shortly after humans colonised the continent. How did we, the weak humans, do this? Circumstantial evidence suggest that our intelligence allowed us to rule over these predators, using the creation of spears, bows and arrows, swords, and eventually guns - all these newfangled, incomparable weapons eventually causing the death of animals which were considered pests, but would be worth their weight in gold to any zoo in the world today. Question answered. Well, good enough, let's move on.
Second question. If you say our intelligence surpasses that of other animals by far, far away, then where was this intelligence evolved from? The answer will inevitably point very clearly to two points: the apes, and our genetic cousins the Neanderthals. The general argument of atheists is that humans evolved from apes. This claim is mostly due to the biological and humanitarian works of Jane Goodall, a British primatologist, biologist, ethologist, and anthropologist, who devoted her life to studying the psyches of apes in general. While she is mostly remembered, thanks to her humanitarian efforts, as the UN Messenger of Peace, her studies also led her to find several interesting biological discoveries that she used for her humanitarian struggles. She found many similarities between apes and humans in terms of their DNA, and rode on Charles Darwin's discoveries to make the claim that humans evolved from apes. They likened this to eugenics, which is an idea that has been bouncing around since the dawn of the Cold War. Eugenics is the idea of preventing disabled humans with "poor genes" from reproduction, eventually producing a population free of these "poor genes". This functions exactly to the process of natural selection, and hence is also called man-made selection. Another point in this question to note is the overwhelming evidence of evolution in the Neanderthals. These Neanderthals are undoubtedly of human origin, as they share 99.97% of regular human DNA, but that difference of 0.03% is enough to give proof of evolution. The point of the atheists noting this out is the following: "If Neanderthals can evolve that 0.03% in such a short time, so much more can the humans from apes, in a longer timespan, evolve that minuscule difference!" They will then move on to claim the tiny difference between ape intelligence and human intelligence, given plenty of time, can be evolved into being. Very well. We have no evidence against such a claim. But now, we move on to the question that will baffle many atheists.
The third question. If you say that everything in this world evolved through the process of natural selection, there must have been a first species to naturally select from. Natural selection occurs on the basis from one food web to evolve to form a changed and edited one, but with no existing food web in the first place, the whole idea collapses. Many leading atheistic scientists will refuse to answer this question, which gets to the very heart of the difference between atheism and religion, the difference between creation and evolution. The ones who do answer this will be forced to suggest that Earth has been there all along; the food webs we know have also been there all along.
Fourth question. If you say that the Earth has been there all along, what of the Big Bang theory, then? Many atheistic scientists have been forced to believe in a creator because of this. It does not stand to reason that the entire universe and, in particular, the food webs on Earth, was all squeezed into that small atom-wide space of supercharged energy. While the Universe can fit inside, since it is able to expand(and still is expanding, we all know that), animals can't. You can't fit an elephant inside an atom of space. It can't have started out like that and expanded, either. If that's what happened, we would all be dead. While non-living matter can easily be expanded and contracted, living matter would die if subjected to these sort of forces. Atheists, once again, are forced to doubtfully say that the Universe, like the God in religion, has been there all through time - or before time, as we define it, and that the Big Bang theory is incorrect.
Fifth question. If this Universe of ours has been always there, where do humans come in? Humans have always defined time in their limited scope. This brings us to a "flip-a-coin scenario" - where the Universe is ruled by luck. If time is immemorial and eternal, then it is undefinable. For that, we can easily define time as a either having no start, or no end - leading us now to a "glass half-full or half-empty" scenario. We can now define time as having never passed - we are still where we started - or having passed to its fullest extent - it is as far away from where it started, since eternity has no start and no end. This is also used to define God, who had no start and has no end.
To properly answer this question, we will need to refer to a storybook scenario: a parallel universe.
Let's set the boundaries for this universe first. Let us consider time first. In one universe: the atheistic one, the claim is that the Universe has always existed, so time here will have no beginning and no end. In the other universe: the religionistic one, the claim is that God has always existed, so time here will also have no beginning and no end.
Looking at the atheist's universe first, we have already found that it is ruled by luck. Since humanity, based on atheists, happens only once - we are one of a kind - we could easily have occurred millions of human years (human years, because, like I said, time is undefinable in terms of eternity) ago, or after.This basically leaves it at the flip of a coin. The coin lands heads up, and hence we are here today. But how can this Universe be ruled by luck? We would easily all be dead. Let's take a look at the religionist universe.
God is eternal. On the other hand, this universe is not eternal. It had a beginning and it will have an end, so it is not ruled by chance. Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." By "the beginning", it refers to the beginning of the Universe, not the beginning of time, since God was there all along, and there is no beginning of time except what is defined by humans: a definition set by God, when the Universe was created. However, the Bible is confusing. Revelation 21:1 says: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. This gives a brief indication that we may not be the first universe! But then, archaeologists have clearly discovered indications in THIS world, of Biblical events. So we are the first world. Then, assuringly, we are not ruled by chance.
If life is ruled by chance, there is as good a chance of anything happening: you don't know what will happen until it does. But with God at the center of existence, we know that our life has meaning, and that we have a place, a time, a role in the world's history and the Universe's. Praise the Lord!
Atheism is largely based on the Darwinian theory of evolution, which includes the basic idea from Charles Darwin of natural selection. Natural selection functions on the basis that over long periods of time, out of a biological food web, only the strongest, most productive, and most intelligent survive, while the others are weeded out by the laws of nature due to their own incompetence. While this theory works out in many situations and can sufficiently explain many scenarios, it cannot resolve the problem of creation and I'm going to show you why, in a question and answer format where the questions are asked by religionists, and the answers provided by atheists as well as they can.
First question. If natural selection occurs on the basis that only the strongest, smartest and most productive survive, then why are humans still here? After all, we humans are weak animals, and we take a whole 9 months to give birth to just one baby (unless it's a twin, triplet, or so on). The atheist answer, of course, focuses on intelligence. Humans, by judgement, are many times more intelligent than other animals. They then point out to the Quaternary Extinction Event, which cause die-offs of many powerful natural predators in Europe, happening shortly after humans colonised the continent. How did we, the weak humans, do this? Circumstantial evidence suggest that our intelligence allowed us to rule over these predators, using the creation of spears, bows and arrows, swords, and eventually guns - all these newfangled, incomparable weapons eventually causing the death of animals which were considered pests, but would be worth their weight in gold to any zoo in the world today. Question answered. Well, good enough, let's move on.
Second question. If you say our intelligence surpasses that of other animals by far, far away, then where was this intelligence evolved from? The answer will inevitably point very clearly to two points: the apes, and our genetic cousins the Neanderthals. The general argument of atheists is that humans evolved from apes. This claim is mostly due to the biological and humanitarian works of Jane Goodall, a British primatologist, biologist, ethologist, and anthropologist, who devoted her life to studying the psyches of apes in general. While she is mostly remembered, thanks to her humanitarian efforts, as the UN Messenger of Peace, her studies also led her to find several interesting biological discoveries that she used for her humanitarian struggles. She found many similarities between apes and humans in terms of their DNA, and rode on Charles Darwin's discoveries to make the claim that humans evolved from apes. They likened this to eugenics, which is an idea that has been bouncing around since the dawn of the Cold War. Eugenics is the idea of preventing disabled humans with "poor genes" from reproduction, eventually producing a population free of these "poor genes". This functions exactly to the process of natural selection, and hence is also called man-made selection. Another point in this question to note is the overwhelming evidence of evolution in the Neanderthals. These Neanderthals are undoubtedly of human origin, as they share 99.97% of regular human DNA, but that difference of 0.03% is enough to give proof of evolution. The point of the atheists noting this out is the following: "If Neanderthals can evolve that 0.03% in such a short time, so much more can the humans from apes, in a longer timespan, evolve that minuscule difference!" They will then move on to claim the tiny difference between ape intelligence and human intelligence, given plenty of time, can be evolved into being. Very well. We have no evidence against such a claim. But now, we move on to the question that will baffle many atheists.
The third question. If you say that everything in this world evolved through the process of natural selection, there must have been a first species to naturally select from. Natural selection occurs on the basis from one food web to evolve to form a changed and edited one, but with no existing food web in the first place, the whole idea collapses. Many leading atheistic scientists will refuse to answer this question, which gets to the very heart of the difference between atheism and religion, the difference between creation and evolution. The ones who do answer this will be forced to suggest that Earth has been there all along; the food webs we know have also been there all along.
Fourth question. If you say that the Earth has been there all along, what of the Big Bang theory, then? Many atheistic scientists have been forced to believe in a creator because of this. It does not stand to reason that the entire universe and, in particular, the food webs on Earth, was all squeezed into that small atom-wide space of supercharged energy. While the Universe can fit inside, since it is able to expand(and still is expanding, we all know that), animals can't. You can't fit an elephant inside an atom of space. It can't have started out like that and expanded, either. If that's what happened, we would all be dead. While non-living matter can easily be expanded and contracted, living matter would die if subjected to these sort of forces. Atheists, once again, are forced to doubtfully say that the Universe, like the God in religion, has been there all through time - or before time, as we define it, and that the Big Bang theory is incorrect.
Fifth question. If this Universe of ours has been always there, where do humans come in? Humans have always defined time in their limited scope. This brings us to a "flip-a-coin scenario" - where the Universe is ruled by luck. If time is immemorial and eternal, then it is undefinable. For that, we can easily define time as a either having no start, or no end - leading us now to a "glass half-full or half-empty" scenario. We can now define time as having never passed - we are still where we started - or having passed to its fullest extent - it is as far away from where it started, since eternity has no start and no end. This is also used to define God, who had no start and has no end.
To properly answer this question, we will need to refer to a storybook scenario: a parallel universe.
Let's set the boundaries for this universe first. Let us consider time first. In one universe: the atheistic one, the claim is that the Universe has always existed, so time here will have no beginning and no end. In the other universe: the religionistic one, the claim is that God has always existed, so time here will also have no beginning and no end.
Looking at the atheist's universe first, we have already found that it is ruled by luck. Since humanity, based on atheists, happens only once - we are one of a kind - we could easily have occurred millions of human years (human years, because, like I said, time is undefinable in terms of eternity) ago, or after.This basically leaves it at the flip of a coin. The coin lands heads up, and hence we are here today. But how can this Universe be ruled by luck? We would easily all be dead. Let's take a look at the religionist universe.
God is eternal. On the other hand, this universe is not eternal. It had a beginning and it will have an end, so it is not ruled by chance. Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." By "the beginning", it refers to the beginning of the Universe, not the beginning of time, since God was there all along, and there is no beginning of time except what is defined by humans: a definition set by God, when the Universe was created. However, the Bible is confusing. Revelation 21:1 says: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. This gives a brief indication that we may not be the first universe! But then, archaeologists have clearly discovered indications in THIS world, of Biblical events. So we are the first world. Then, assuringly, we are not ruled by chance.
If life is ruled by chance, there is as good a chance of anything happening: you don't know what will happen until it does. But with God at the center of existence, we know that our life has meaning, and that we have a place, a time, a role in the world's history and the Universe's. Praise the Lord!
Nov 14, 2017
0
#14
This message is brought to you by the LethalRook.
Not religious, but scientific fact that is not copied from anywhere. However, the final decision is ethical.
Not religious, but scientific fact that is not copied from anywhere. However, the final decision is ethical.
In b4 the lock
Nov 14, 2017
0
#16
LethalRook_1892 wrote:
Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection
Atheism is largely based on the Darwinian theory of evolution, which includes the basic idea from Charles Darwin of natural selection. Natural selection functions on the basis that over long periods of time, out of a biological food web, only the strongest, most productive, and most intelligent survive, while the others are weeded out by the laws of nature due to their own incompetence. While this theory works out in many situations and can sufficiently explain many scenarios, it cannot resolve the problem of creation and I'm going to show you why, in a question and answer format where the questions are asked by religionists, and the answers provided by atheists as well as they can.
First question. If natural selection occurs on the basis that only the strongest, smartest and most productive survive, then why are humans still here? After all, we humans are weak animals, and we take a whole 9 months to give birth to just one baby (unless it's a twin, triplet, or so on). The atheist answer, of course, focuses on intelligence. Humans, by judgement, are many times more intelligent than other animals. They then point out to the Quaternary Extinction Event, which cause die-offs of many powerful natural predators in Europe, happening shortly after humans colonised the continent. How did we, the weak humans, do this? Circumstantial evidence suggest that our intelligence allowed us to rule over these predators, using the creation of spears, bows and arrows, swords, and eventually guns - all these newfangled, incomparable weapons eventually causing the death of animals which were considered pests, but would be worth their weight in gold to any zoo in the world today. Question answered. Well, good enough, let's move on.
Second question. If you say our intelligence surpasses that of other animals by far, far away, then where was this intelligence evolved from? The answer will inevitably point very clearly to two points: the apes, and our genetic cousins the Neanderthals. The general argument of atheists is that humans evolved from apes. This claim is mostly due to the biological and humanitarian works of Jane Goodall, a British primatologist, biologist, ethologist, and anthropologist, who devoted her life to studying the psyches of apes in general. While she is mostly remembered, thanks to her humanitarian efforts, as the UN Messenger of Peace, her studies also led her to find several interesting biological discoveries that she used for her humanitarian struggles. She found many similarities between apes and humans in terms of their DNA, and rode on Charles Darwin's discoveries to make the claim that humans evolved from apes. They likened this to eugenics, which is an idea that has been bouncing around since the dawn of the Cold War. Eugenics is the idea of preventing disabled humans with "poor genes" from reproduction, eventually producing a population free of these "poor genes". This functions exactly to the process of natural selection, and hence is also called man-made selection. Another point in this question to note is the overwhelming evidence of evolution in the Neanderthals. These Neanderthals are undoubtedly of human origin, as they share 99.97% of regular human DNA, but that difference of 0.03% is enough to give proof of evolution. The point of the atheists noting this out is the following: "If Neanderthals can evolve that 0.03% in such a short time, so much more can the humans from apes, in a longer timespan, evolve that minuscule difference!" They will then move on to claim the tiny difference between ape intelligence and human intelligence, given plenty of time, can be evolved into being. Very well. We have no evidence against such a claim. But now, we move on to the question that will baffle many atheists.
The third question. If you say that everything in this world evolved through the process of natural selection, there must have been a first species to naturally select from. Natural selection occurs on the basis from one food web to evolve to form a changed and edited one, but with no existing food web in the first place, the whole idea collapses. Many leading atheistic scientists will refuse to answer this question, which gets to the very heart of the difference between atheism and religion, the difference between creation and evolution. The ones who do answer this will be forced to suggest that Earth has been there all along; the food webs we know have also been there all along.
Fourth question. If you say that the Earth has been there all along, what of the Big Bang theory, then? Many atheistic scientists have been forced to believe in a creator because of this. It does not stand to reason that the entire universe and, in particular, the food webs on Earth, was all squeezed into that small atom-wide space of supercharged energy. While the Universe can fit inside, since it is able to expand(and still is expanding, we all know that), animals can't. You can't fit an elephant inside an atom of space. It can't have started out like that and expanded, either. If that's what happened, we would all be dead. While non-living matter can easily be expanded and contracted, living matter would die if subjected to these sort of forces. Atheists, once again, are forced to doubtfully say that the Universe, like the God in religion, has been there all through time - or before time, as we define it, and that the Big Bang theory is incorrect.
Fifth question. If this Universe of ours has been always there, where do humans come in? Humans have always defined time in their limited scope. This brings us to a "flip-a-coin scenario" - where the Universe is ruled by luck. If time is immemorial and eternal, then it is undefinable. For that, we can easily define time as a either having no start, or no end - leading us now to a "glass half-full or half-empty" scenario. We can now define time as having never passed - we are still where we started - or having passed to its fullest extent - it is as far away from where it started, since eternity has no start and no end. This is also used to define God, who had no start and has no end.
To properly answer this question, we will need to refer to a storybook scenario: a parallel universe.
Let's set the boundaries for this universe first. Let us consider time first. In one universe: the atheistic one, the claim is that the Universe has always existed, so time here will have no beginning and no end. In the other universe: the religionistic one, the claim is that God has always existed, so time here will also have no beginning and no end.
Looking at the atheist's universe first, we have already found that it is ruled by luck. Since humanity, based on atheists, happens only once - we are one of a kind - we could easily have occurred millions of human years (human years, because, like I said, time is undefinable in terms of eternity) ago, or after.This basically leaves it at the flip of a coin. The coin lands heads up, and hence we are here today. But how can this Universe be ruled by luck? We would easily all be dead. Let's take a look at the religionist universe.
God is eternal. On the other hand, this universe is not eternal. It had a beginning and it will have an end, so it is not ruled by chance. Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." By "the beginning", it refers to the beginning of the Universe, not the beginning of time, since God was there all along, and there is no beginning of time except what is defined by humans: a definition set by God, when the Universe was created. However, the Bible is confusing. Revelation 21:1 says: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. This gives a brief indication that we may not be the first universe! But then, archaeologists have clearly discovered indications in THIS world, of Biblical events. So we are the first world. Then, assuringly, we are not ruled by chance.
If life is ruled by chance, there is as good a chance of anything happening: you don't know what will happen until it does. But with God at the center of existence, we know that our life has meaning, and that we have a place, a time, a role in the world's history and the Universe's. Praise the Lord!
Atheism is largely based on the Darwinian theory of evolution, which includes the basic idea from Charles Darwin of natural selection. Natural selection functions on the basis that over long periods of time, out of a biological food web, only the strongest, most productive, and most intelligent survive, while the others are weeded out by the laws of nature due to their own incompetence. While this theory works out in many situations and can sufficiently explain many scenarios, it cannot resolve the problem of creation and I'm going to show you why, in a question and answer format where the questions are asked by religionists, and the answers provided by atheists as well as they can.
First question. If natural selection occurs on the basis that only the strongest, smartest and most productive survive, then why are humans still here? After all, we humans are weak animals, and we take a whole 9 months to give birth to just one baby (unless it's a twin, triplet, or so on). The atheist answer, of course, focuses on intelligence. Humans, by judgement, are many times more intelligent than other animals. They then point out to the Quaternary Extinction Event, which cause die-offs of many powerful natural predators in Europe, happening shortly after humans colonised the continent. How did we, the weak humans, do this? Circumstantial evidence suggest that our intelligence allowed us to rule over these predators, using the creation of spears, bows and arrows, swords, and eventually guns - all these newfangled, incomparable weapons eventually causing the death of animals which were considered pests, but would be worth their weight in gold to any zoo in the world today. Question answered. Well, good enough, let's move on.
Second question. If you say our intelligence surpasses that of other animals by far, far away, then where was this intelligence evolved from? The answer will inevitably point very clearly to two points: the apes, and our genetic cousins the Neanderthals. The general argument of atheists is that humans evolved from apes. This claim is mostly due to the biological and humanitarian works of Jane Goodall, a British primatologist, biologist, ethologist, and anthropologist, who devoted her life to studying the psyches of apes in general. While she is mostly remembered, thanks to her humanitarian efforts, as the UN Messenger of Peace, her studies also led her to find several interesting biological discoveries that she used for her humanitarian struggles. She found many similarities between apes and humans in terms of their DNA, and rode on Charles Darwin's discoveries to make the claim that humans evolved from apes. They likened this to eugenics, which is an idea that has been bouncing around since the dawn of the Cold War. Eugenics is the idea of preventing disabled humans with "poor genes" from reproduction, eventually producing a population free of these "poor genes". This functions exactly to the process of natural selection, and hence is also called man-made selection. Another point in this question to note is the overwhelming evidence of evolution in the Neanderthals. These Neanderthals are undoubtedly of human origin, as they share 99.97% of regular human DNA, but that difference of 0.03% is enough to give proof of evolution. The point of the atheists noting this out is the following: "If Neanderthals can evolve that 0.03% in such a short time, so much more can the humans from apes, in a longer timespan, evolve that minuscule difference!" They will then move on to claim the tiny difference between ape intelligence and human intelligence, given plenty of time, can be evolved into being. Very well. We have no evidence against such a claim. But now, we move on to the question that will baffle many atheists.
The third question. If you say that everything in this world evolved through the process of natural selection, there must have been a first species to naturally select from. Natural selection occurs on the basis from one food web to evolve to form a changed and edited one, but with no existing food web in the first place, the whole idea collapses. Many leading atheistic scientists will refuse to answer this question, which gets to the very heart of the difference between atheism and religion, the difference between creation and evolution. The ones who do answer this will be forced to suggest that Earth has been there all along; the food webs we know have also been there all along.
Fourth question. If you say that the Earth has been there all along, what of the Big Bang theory, then? Many atheistic scientists have been forced to believe in a creator because of this. It does not stand to reason that the entire universe and, in particular, the food webs on Earth, was all squeezed into that small atom-wide space of supercharged energy. While the Universe can fit inside, since it is able to expand(and still is expanding, we all know that), animals can't. You can't fit an elephant inside an atom of space. It can't have started out like that and expanded, either. If that's what happened, we would all be dead. While non-living matter can easily be expanded and contracted, living matter would die if subjected to these sort of forces. Atheists, once again, are forced to doubtfully say that the Universe, like the God in religion, has been there all through time - or before time, as we define it, and that the Big Bang theory is incorrect.
Fifth question. If this Universe of ours has been always there, where do humans come in? Humans have always defined time in their limited scope. This brings us to a "flip-a-coin scenario" - where the Universe is ruled by luck. If time is immemorial and eternal, then it is undefinable. For that, we can easily define time as a either having no start, or no end - leading us now to a "glass half-full or half-empty" scenario. We can now define time as having never passed - we are still where we started - or having passed to its fullest extent - it is as far away from where it started, since eternity has no start and no end. This is also used to define God, who had no start and has no end.
To properly answer this question, we will need to refer to a storybook scenario: a parallel universe.
Let's set the boundaries for this universe first. Let us consider time first. In one universe: the atheistic one, the claim is that the Universe has always existed, so time here will have no beginning and no end. In the other universe: the religionistic one, the claim is that God has always existed, so time here will also have no beginning and no end.
Looking at the atheist's universe first, we have already found that it is ruled by luck. Since humanity, based on atheists, happens only once - we are one of a kind - we could easily have occurred millions of human years (human years, because, like I said, time is undefinable in terms of eternity) ago, or after.This basically leaves it at the flip of a coin. The coin lands heads up, and hence we are here today. But how can this Universe be ruled by luck? We would easily all be dead. Let's take a look at the religionist universe.
God is eternal. On the other hand, this universe is not eternal. It had a beginning and it will have an end, so it is not ruled by chance. Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." By "the beginning", it refers to the beginning of the Universe, not the beginning of time, since God was there all along, and there is no beginning of time except what is defined by humans: a definition set by God, when the Universe was created. However, the Bible is confusing. Revelation 21:1 says: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. This gives a brief indication that we may not be the first universe! But then, archaeologists have clearly discovered indications in THIS world, of Biblical events. So we are the first world. Then, assuringly, we are not ruled by chance.
If life is ruled by chance, there is as good a chance of anything happening: you don't know what will happen until it does. But with God at the center of existence, we know that our life has meaning, and that we have a place, a time, a role in the world's history and the Universe's. Praise the Lord!
Thanks for the thoughts! You made some excellent points.
If everything was based on random chance it makes no sense that we are still here. Why hasn't the sun crashed into the world, for example?
Nov 14, 2017
0
#17
Please delete that picture, it does not advance the discussion and is inappropriate.
Why hasn't the sun crashed into the world, for example?
Because there’s physics, man. You really didn’t pay attention in school. Is it ignorance that make you think these things? Is it that you have been brainwashed? Yeah I know, you claim I was brainwashed.
You probably also don’t acknowledge climate change - it’s god’s will, it has happened before, there is no evidence for it - but see, there it gets dangerous for people, especially for my kids who’ll be hanging around for quite some time. Or the people on pacific islands. Or the Polar bears... the list is never ending.
It’s so sad, and one day there will be a chapter in history books called ‘The Morons’ describing your pittied breed.
This a thread for those who believe in creation rather then evolution, and wish to discuss why.